Psychological and Physical Violence

A Millennial’s Perspective on the Oscars Slap, Comedy, and Freedom of Speech

First posted 4-03-2022

Abstract: In this essay, I will explore the common experiences of the Millennial generation that instilled in them a greater awareness of psychological violence, how that may affect their responses to the altercation that occurred at the 2022 Academy Awards ceremony, and more broadly, their opinions about problematic comedy and freedom of speech.

Before beginning this essay, I feel that I must make a confession: I did not watch the Oscars telecast last Sunday. (I am working on another piece in which I will lay out the reasons why I had no interest in watching the Oscars telecast.) Because I did not watch the Oscars telecast live, I did not witness the altercation between Will Smith and Chris Rock live on television—I did not even know about it until I went to look up the Oscar winners. Of course, anyone can go back and watch the video of the event, as I did. However, my purpose in this essay is not to discuss the slap itself, or the response to it, but instead to discuss the assertion that there is a generational divide in people’s responses to the slap and, by extension, their attitudes towards violence and freedom of speech.

The “Comment Section” Generation

Professor Jacques Berlinerblau has a piece at Salon in which he describes a generational divide between his reaction to the altercation at the 2022 Oscars ceremony and that of his freshman students. His students, on the one hand, universally felt that Rock's joke was unacceptable, and many felt that Smith’s reaction was justified. Berlinerblau himself takes the opposing view: that Smith's assault on Rock was entirely unacceptable and part of a much larger and deeply troubling assault on freedom of speech. In this essay, I want to explore the differences in experience that could lead to such different reactions.

Berlinerblau provides several recent studies to support his claim that there is a significant generational divide in attitudes towards free speech, and while I have not done enough research in this area to evaluate his assertions, I can say that my anecdotal experience generally aligns with the attitudes he ascribes to his students. For the sake of this essay I shall assume that the generational divide Berlinerblau discussess does, in fact, exist, and proceed to discuss the factors that would contribute to the differing generational attitudes he describes as if its existence is established. However, I do disagree with his implication that these differing generational attitudes represent a lack of concern for free speech among younger generations—instead, I believe that these primarily represent changes in attitudes towards (and conceptions of) violence, especially psychological violence.

First, consider the environmental background of the Millennial generation: we came of age on the internet and in its many communal spaces—message boards, chat rooms, early social networks, blogs, and, above all, comment sections. I highlight comment sections specifically because, in my opinion, they were (even more than message boards) the first breeding ground of what I might call recreational mean-spiritedness, and most people have come to call trolling, that has grown to infect nearly every corner of the internet. For this precise reason I do not have comment sections on my website: I believe that whatever potential opportunities they may create for positive social interactions are far outweighed by the opportunities they create for anonymous meanness.

Not only have we Millennials, as a generation, had to learn to navigate the battlefield of hurtful speech that is much of the internet, but we have also witnessed a dramatic upsurge in hurtful speech in offline public (and private) spaces. Comedians and humorists have contributed to this trend by embracing hurtful and degrading jokes in the name of “edginess.” Even those who avoid such jokes may defend them under the cause of freedom of expression. This, in turn, has inspired countless celebrities and public figures to attempt to excuse thoughtless or offensive speech as “humor.” These factors have made the Millennials, and subsequently Gen Z, especially sensitive to what I call psychological violence.

Psychological Violence

Back in the day, there was a cliché that went “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Most of you probably heard it when you were kids, I certainly know I did (even though it was already quite old-fashioned by the time I was born). The point of this statement is, presumably, to teach children to shrug of verbal assaults by suggesting that they cannot do any real harm. This cliché is less a reflection of psychological realities as it is a part of the general American trend of denying and devaluing the psychological and emotional aspects of life.

The clear implication is that there is a distinction between physical violence and psychological violence—and that the latter is not real violence at all. Of course, this is not true: words can certainly be implements of violence, and as such can do great harm—sometimes even greater harm than physical violence. Too many people have been bullied to death solely through verbal, social, or online harassment. These cases prove that psychological violence is a major threat to people’s mental health and well-being.

This aligns with an intuitive view that has held throughout much of human history: that physical and psychological violence are essentially the same—and that the one can sometimes be an appropriate response to the other. However, this a view largely denied by modern society. Millennials are perhaps the first modern American generation to collectively come to grips with the concept of psychological violence: it is typical of Millennials, and subsequent generations, to reject the distinction between physical and psychological violence and instead assert that psychological violence should be taken as seriously as physical violence is. Additionally, many Millennials are skeptical of past generations' condemnations of physical violence, which have too often fallen upon the bullied rather than the bullies. (Such condemnations are also hypocritical in that they commonly come from persons who willingly endorse state-sponsored physical violence at the hands of military and law enforcement.)

This is the essential quality that differentiates the typical Millennial or Gen Z perspective from that typical of previous generations: we would see Chris Rock's tasteless joke as an act of psychological violence in itself. Furthermore, we might be inclined to take a more sympathetic or forgiving view of Will Smith’s action as an example of standing up for a victim of bullying—even if we agree that that action was objectively inappropriate or disproportionate—because an act of psychological violence had already been committed. Millennials also tend to have a more favorable view of emotional expression, in all its forms. I suspect that Millennials' awareness of psychological violence makes them more likely to challenge standards of appropriate or decorous behavior that demand that people suppress their emotions. This would make them more likely to sympathize with Smith for being overcome by his emotions, rather than seeing his emotional outburst as a moral failing.

The Need for “Speech Control”

This heightened awareness of the dangers of psychological violence can explains how generally liberal Millennials can hold seemingly illiberal attitudes towards freedom of speech: we are more skeptical of unfettered freedom of speech than previous generations because we are more aware than previous generations of the harm that speech can cause. The Millennial attitude towards speech is essentially analogous to the Millennial attitude towards guns: most Millennials believe that efforts should be made to limit the harm that they can inflict. Essentially, many Millennials believe that the psychological harm that malicious speech can do justifies some form of what I might term speech control.

Unsurprisingly, this has generated a great deal of controversy. Just as many gun owners feel threatened by even minor and reasonable efforts at gun control, many comedians and public intellectuals seem to feel profoundly threatened by the idea of even minor and reasonable speech control. I cannot help but suspect that their motivations are also the same: they do not see themselves as evil people, they have never considered the harm that words can cause if used negligently or for malign intent, and they do not want to face the reality that the exercise of their personal freedom may bring harm to innocent people. I do agree that the defenders of free speech are right when they suggest that comedy plays an important role in preserving freedom and democracy—however, I think (and I suspect that many of my fellow Millennials agree with me) that they go too far in protecting hurtful speech. I was once an ardent defender of free speech; however, I have come to believe that too many people have abused their roles as “social commentators” as an excuse to do harm and to perpetuate systems that do harm. As a society we should not allow their rights to trample upon the rights of others.

For too long, we, as a society, have failed to acknowledge the harm that words can do. As a society we claim (however hypocritically) to condemn violence, but too often we limit that condemnation to physical violence, even when psychological violence can be just as damaging. Concern for freedom of speech should not justify excusing harmful speech. Words are weapons, and like any weapons they can be used for either good or evil. Even words used carelessly can inflict serious psychological harm, as was demonstrated at the Oscars last Sunday. Those who use words professionally, be they comedians or academics, would do well to consider the harm that words can do.