The psychology of Twitterjokes

Many people deplore the conviction of Paul Chambers and arrest of Gavin Compton for making bad jokes on Twitter. What interests me is: what is the underlying sickness here?
Here’s a theory. There are two things going on, which reinforce each other.
The first is what Richard Sennett called the construction of a purified identity. When people are faced with threats and uncertainty, one dissonance reduction response is to build oneself a clear, pure self-image:

The threat of being overwhelmed by difficult social interactions is dealt with by fixing a self-image in advance, by making oneself a fixed object rather than an open person liable to be touched by a social situation…The jarring elements in one’s social life can be purified out…Threatening or painful dissonances are warded off to preserve intact a clear and articulated image of oneself. (The Uses of Disorder, p 6, 9, 11)

Once we’ve constructed such an identity for ourselves - and, of course, fail to see that it is a mere construction - strong talk and off-colour jokes cease to be everyday rumbustiousness and instead because threats and “offensive.” So we appeal to the authorities to protect us. It is no accident that, in justifying her decision to call the Dibble, Ms Alibhai-Brown used the phrase “as a Muslim woman”: Mr Compton’s remark was a threat not to her physical person, but to her self-image.
The purified identity is, perhaps, the polar opposite of the Rortyan liberal ironist.
The second thing going on is the cognitive bias deformation professionelle. Like the actor who asked “Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?“, we tend to see everything from the perspective of our own profession*. Police and security officials thus see threats and menace rather than jokes - because that is what their profession trains them to see.
This bias is buttressed by egocentrism. When it is my job to protect the public, all threats must be taken seriously, because my job is important and I am important, and such things are not to be joked about.
These two things reinforce each other. The desire to protect fragile purified identities (all pure things are fragile) leads to a demand for protection, which bolsters the self-importance of the police, security and judicial professions. And their self-importance in turn helps to legitimize the excessive sensitivity of the easily offended.
There, though, a wonderful irony here. One form which a purified identity can take is radical Islamism - the belief that adherence to a single book can ward off the jarring elements of modernity.
In this sense, Ms Alibhai-Brown and the pompous, humourless security professionals have something in common with the terrorists they oppose.
* I guess I’m often guilty of this.

Comments

[Wildscrutineer]

Is it not simpler than this: even the rational seatstgtw person is forced to act irrationally by their anticipation of future scrutiny by irrational people:

"Ok I know this is a joke and the risk to the airport is no gigdp than it was a moment ago, but were there to be am attack today quite by chance, someone may say that I am the person who ignored a warning and put people at risk."

This is the same process which drives defensive medical practice.

The stoning story is explained thus: "future irrational observers may say I am the person who allowed such a disrespect to islam to go unchallenged.'

[Prateekbuch]

Excellent post - you may find this Radio 5 phone-in discussion from last Friday interesting, includes Evan Harris, Padraid Reidy from Index on Censorship, some rather illiberal personages who take things (including threats clearly made in jest, towards the end) and a cameo from me as well

[Prateekbuch]

sorry, HTML fail - the discussion is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00vrcwh/5_live_Breakfast_Your_Call_12_11_2010

[Phil Ruse]

I think Wildscrutineer nails it. It may be nonsense but passing it on is one way to avoid any blame in the (unlikely) event that it needs to be scrutinised at a later date.