“Everything that gives you attention, growing”. Common place. Is wrong. Weed continues to grow in my roof garden, no matter how orphaned. Another counterexample: there are protests against outgoing Prime Minister today, because he opens the academic year at the University of Twente: no matter what happens, will not grow.
I disagree with that anti-sheaf protest, but at least people take the trouble to physically protest against it. Effort and protest: I should go together as far as I’m concerned.
Emotionally, I had given that ‘attention’ a year of birth, somewhere in the 60s or 70s, a little flowerpower, but I often came across that “Aristotle said it” (384-322 BC). Also not true: the ancient philosopher was talking about the importance of practice, in order to develop virtues, but that ready-made way did not have it ready, not even 2,300 years before the emergence of social media.
Three weeks ago, the now infamous image of Wilders appeared in which the PVV was presented as a smiling, young blonde woman and the PvdA as a wrinkled, veiled, angry -looking old woman – sorry GroenLinks, no attention to you, so no growth.
Immediately discussion followed: ignore or discuss. Editor -in -chief of de Volkskrant Pieter Klok wrote on August 8: “Not with every racist provocation we take action.” ‘Not immediately’ would have been better to say, because later that caricature was indeed in de Volkskrant discussed. Not a matter of principle, more a matter of time.
But there is indeed a dilemma: giving any burping of Wilders attention, and therefore ‘growing’? After the PVV caricature, anti-caricatures, against Wilders and against his presentation appeared. Something like that is called a reply; How critical, is it not oil on the fire, because attention?
The latter suggest two scientists, Nieuwenhuis and De Jong, last week NRC. They focus on the online actions and counter reactions, such as those appearing, for example, following the PVV image. Of course there are the supporters of Wilders, the so-called ‘Wildies’, who are excited about everything that the PVV leader proclaims. But (quote) “Not only the supporters of Wilders were getting rid of en masse with the cartoon, GroenLinks-PvdA followers created and shared their own critical variants.”
The unintended consequence can be that supporters and opponents jointly contribute to the omnipresence of the PVV leader. Or from any politician calls that controversy. The scientists mention the examples of the American Kamala Harris or the former GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver, who each created their own ‘fan base’.
Fan comes from the English ‘fanatic‘And social media lend themselves particularly well to fang behavior, also because it does not cost more physical exertion than a mouse click. Be fanatic without exercising. Conclusion of the media scientists: “Voters behave online as fans and not as critical citizens.”
But do this also include the counter reactions? Do Wilders’ opponents ultimately strengthen his fan base? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
After almost twenty years of social media, it is high time to take stock: all that ‘thumbs up/down’ and the ‘sharing’ of ‘content’: they are ultimately empty gestures that do not so much refer to the message of the sender, but to the sender itself: small struts for its own ego. Your ‘shared’ something like you used to raise a cigarette. Criticism requires strength.
Action and counter -reaction require a personal, physical or intellectual effort: if necessary a signed letter, or, well, a column.
Stephan Sanders is an essayist.