Formation of an Ochlocracy
A major issue commonly associated with direct democracy is the tendency to turn into an ochlocracy, which is often referred to as “mob rule” (“Ochlocracy | Definition of Ochlocracy by Merriam-Webster”). In an ochlocracy a system sometimes considered the tyranny of the majority-by individuals opposed to direct democracy- anything is legal or morally correct as long as it is voted on or decided on democratically by the majority. Now this is a dramatic hyperbole of direct democracy but it’s eventual degeneration will be an ochlocracy if preventative measures are not put into place.
A good modern example of ochlocracy is “cancel culture”, cancel culture while not a political system by nature is the rule of the many in society turning against one or a minority without a significant thought of individuals ethics and morals.
Ethics and morals of the group both become an amalgamation of the strongest spoken ethical and morals which guide the majority’s attack on the victim's character whether innocent or guilty of crime accused. The “cancel culture” movement often times is directed against unsavory individuals who have committed acts against the delicate social fabric that individuals online and in society rely on for comfort. Whether or not this form of social or internet justice is justified is not usually pertinent to the situations at hand; as social media has allowed for unregulated social persecution with minimal effort. The stereotype associated with cancel culture being generally left wing is not a fluke or systemic bias against the left, at least in the past four years. In the last four years as progressives have faced incredibly solid opposition against their movement by former president Donald J. Trump and his supporters' incidents of cancel culture increased as the conflicts between rival camps flared up. In this quote a social psychologist’s analysis of this phenomenon is noted and commented on,
“The social psychologist John Drury shows that the discourse around crowds, collectives, and people who have power historically been problematic and negative, revealing the class biases and political ideologies of those commentators who describe them’...’Drury points out, this language systematically delegitimizes the aims of these collectives as being trivial, if not dangerous: If the crowd is pathologized and criminalized, then its behavior is not meaningful. There can therefore be no rational dialogue with it. Since the crowd is not part of the democratic process, it is legitimate and even necessary to suppress it with the full force of the state.’”(Luu).
The influence of the majority is not merely uncheck tyranny but the perception of the majority’s mobbing is judged and tired in the court of public appeal by the minority (those who did not participate or are ideologically incompatible). This is where one sees the conservative’s coming out in a reactionary capacity to staunchly criticize the mob-like behavior of the ‘progressive’ left. The perception of the actions of the mob is subjective and generally subject to wider criticisms than praise by society at large. The scientific origins of cancel culture are ones rooted in the social sciences in this article the author refers to a research paper on the findings of psychologist Michele Gelfand on how ‘tightness’ (mass social coercion on a similar ideological basis) effect cancel culture in other societies,
”...national and subgroup cultures differ in the degree to which they are tight or loose. Extremely tight cultures, like those found in Pakistan, Malaysia and Singapore, have very clear and strict rules, norms and taboos for social behavior. When members of their society deviate from the rules, they’re often met with harsh sanctions from other citizens — similar to our online “cancel culture” today.” (Coleman).
This example of society's social coercion shows how a direct democracy functions based on how coercive individuals are ideologically, physically, and spiritually in any given society affects the strength of “cancel culture”. In the remainder of the article an explanation of what happens in looser cultures in regards to the phenomenon of ‘cancel culture’,”Looser cultures on the other hand, like in Brazil, Greece and New Zealand, may also have rules, but citizens see them more as guidelines or suggestions, and allow much more room for social deviance and individual expression.” (Coleman). The online progressive community has become a tightly bound tightly strung community under the trump administration which kept progressives on constant alert for attacks on ideological goals and the crusade against ideas commonly binding progressive peoples together. In the article the conclusion is that,”..tightness comes from living under prolonged states of threat and attack.”(Coleman). Which progressives have come under increasing amounts of tightness leading to the essential militarist usage of ‘cancel culture’. “When under threat, groups often find that they need to get in sync — coordinate and communicate more efficiently and effectively in order to survive.”(Coleman). The ‘cancel culture’ that exists today is a form of modernized ochlocracy in which social media progressives and sometimes even conservatives act as a metaphorical mob against different ideals, this is why even the people must be able to restrict themselves from having unfettered control over their governance.
コメント