The Anti-Vaccine Movement Should Be Ridiculed, Because Shame Works
The best way to win a debate is to present your facts in a clear, respectful way. When that doesn't work, another option is incessant ridicule. Here's why we have to use shame if we want to stop the anti-vaccine movement.
By now I'm sure you know the score. America's anti-vaccination movement has steamrolled its way across the country, leaving a trail of sick people in its wake. Measles is back. Whooping cough is back. And it's all because we spent the last decade watching people like Jenny McCarthy concoct a narrative that vaccines are unsafe. This is a public health crisis that's simply inexcusable.
Vaccines are safe, though I'm not here to convince you of that. Countless scientists and doctors have already presented evidence for over a century that vaccines work. They save the lives of kids, families, and whole communities. At this point no amount of logical argument or proof will convince McCarthy and her ilk that vaccines are safe. Studies show that confronting anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers with logic only makes them more defensive and thus more deeply entrenched in their positions. So why do we continue to use logic with the anti-vaccination movement? After all, the movement's modern founding text, a 1998 paper by British doctor Andrew Wakefield, was retracted and deemed fraudulent. Wakefield was even stripped of his medical license. But this has only strengthened the resolve of the anti-vaxxers in their belief that the medical establishment doesn't want people to know "the truth."
I'm here to convince you that the best way to deal with anti-vaxxers is to ridicule their position so much that it's no longer acceptable to say in polite company that vaccines cause autism.Ridicule is our best option to help stem the tide of dangerous superstition washing over this beautiful, measles-infested country of ours. Because shaming works.
Shame is one of the most potent forces in American society. And just like any tool of socialization and conformity, it can be used for both good and evil. Shame is currently winning the battle for marriage equality. We're seeing the battle play out in real time, and the bigots are losing because they're being ridiculed for articulating hateful beliefs. It's fast becoming unacceptable to compare gay marriage with bestiality. Not simply because it's an absurd comparison but because doing so rightly opens one up to ridicule and shame.
When it comes to the unhinged advocacy of unscientific ideas that endanger public health, it's time to bring out the big guns. Ridicule and shame are here to help. And history provides a handy guide for how they can be used for good.
Shaming the KKK
In the mid-1940s, an activist named Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan to learn about the hate group's secret handshakes and code words. Kennedy passed on this information to the producers of "The Adventures of Superman," one of the most popular radio shows of the time, and the show serialized Superman's battles against the KKK. Over 16 glorious episodes the Klan was ridiculed nonstop for their ridiculous beliefs and silly practices. Virtually overnight, Klan recruitment slipped to zero.
White Americans of the 1940s didn't instantly become less racist. But joining the Klan was now something laughable — it was something you didn't admit to in public. Klansmen continued to exist and racism persisted, but Americans no longer wanted to be openly affiliated with an organization that dressed up in their bedsheets and whispered stupid codewords to each other. The introduction of ridicule to anyone who thought of joining the Klan had worked. Association with the Klan was now something to be ashamed of in mainstream American society after the KKK's brief (yet still terrifying) flirtation with respectability. What worked against the Klan can work for unscientific ideas, like the toxic meme that vaccines are causing more diseases than they're preventing.
The fact is, people don't like to feel dumb. Sure, some say that there's been a rise of anti-intellectualism in the United States. But that narrative (which, frankly, I think is a gross romanticization of a period in American history that never actually existed) isn't dependent upon our desire to not look foolish in front of our peers.
The anti-vaccination movement isn't exclusive to any particular ideology. So how is it possible that politicians like Rand Paul can respond to questions about the safety of vaccines with anything other than an unequivocal "use them because they're safe"? Because the anti-scientific alternative hasn't yet been made repugnant enough. Still, shame is making inroads: Paul would later get a booster vaccine after the media firestorm over his comments, proving that shame really does work.
Shame vs. Guilt
When people complain that Americans have no shame these days, they're not altogether wrong. The United States is primarily a guilt-based culture. The dominant method of social control in this country involves teaching people to feel guilt about not living up to personal expectations. Contrast this with shame-based cultures like Japan. As researchers Ying Wong and Jeanne Tsai explain in their paper, Cultural Models of Shame and Guilt, shame is "associated with the fear of exposing one's defective self to others. Guilt, on the other hand, is associated with the fear of not living up to one's own standards." In this formulation, guilt is based on failing to achieve personal ideals; shame is based on social exposure.
The United States is a nation of guilt. We could use a bit more shame.
A high school student in Little Rock during integration attempts in 1957 proudly punches a dummy of a black student lynched, and later burned, in effigy (Associated Press)
The anti-vaccination movement, much like other poisonous elements of society, will still be there after the tide has turned. The goal is not to completely wipe out personal beliefs, but rather make them so unpopular that it's not longer acceptable to take pride in the anti-vaccination position in public. Real change in culture follows.
What happened to the racists standing in front of schools shouting that they didn't want racial integration during the 1950s and 60s? Did they just disappear? Nope. But over the next two decades it became increasingly inappropriate to spew racist bile in public. Their racism was no longer considered socially acceptable behavior by the culture at large. Joyously punching (and later burning) an effigy of a black student was no longer something that could be done in public, as it was in the photo above. Mainstream America came to see it as a shameful act. The social rules changed.
Shaming a Movement, Not Humiliating People
Let me be clear that I'm not advocating that individuals on street corners be shamed for not vaccinating their kids. Fundamentally, individuals choosing not to vaccinate are doing so largely out of misguided concern for the health of their children. I'm arguing that we need to do something much more radical and difficult: we need to support a culture that shames its members for not vaccinating their kids — and by extension, for endangering their communities. Vaccination is a social issue, and therefore shame should regulate it.
But changing our culture means taking aim at the powerful and those profiting from the anti-vaccination movement. And make no mistake that there are people getting rich from the anti-vaccine industry.
We also must also draw a distinction between shame and humiliation. It is not our goal to humiliate. As William Ian Miller explains in his book Humiliation and Other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort, and Violence:
To shame is serious business. Shaming someone is usually understood to be more formal, more regularized, more directed to the maintenance of specific community norms than humiliating someone is. [...] Shaming operates by stripping someone of a status she had some right to before the particular failing, whereas humiliation destroys the illusion of having belonged at all.
I don't want to advocate humiliating or bullying individuals. Shame is about regulating social norms, not screaming at powerless people on Twitter.
As a society, we need to ridicule the anti-vaccination movement's appeals to science and reason. Because fundamentally, that's the problem. Anti-vaccine advocates believe that they have scientific backing on this one, and that's what gives them social legitimacy. But that legitimacy is a lie. It is a shameful and socially destructive lie.
There are some people with perfectly legitimate reasons not to vaccinate their kids. Allergies to vaccines are rare, but they exist. And that's all the more reason that establishing herd immunity through 90-95 percent vaccination rates is important. Ridicule of anti-vaxxers isn't targeted at people who are allergic, just as the ridicule of faddish gluten-free diets isn't aimed at people who are actually allergic to gluten.
The anti-vaccine movement is threatening everybody's health and safety. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves. Ridicule and the resulting shame are not pleasant things to talk about or invoke. But it's time to stop pretending. Until we establish a culture of shame around anti-vaccine talking points, this problem will not go away.
Illustration by Jim Cooke, photo via Getty
Vaccines are safe
Is this equally true for all vaccinations. Or are you merely referring to the autism-vaccination link?
I thought there were still some concerns about some of the vaccinations (or their ingredients) potentially having other effects. Especially some of these "newer" ones.
No one ever said all vaccines are safe. The smallpox vaccine can cause major reactions which is why it is no longer mandatory (except for the military and certain health care workers where it is still mandatory). As a whole vaccines, even with their associated risks, are way better then the alternative. Vaccinate your kids, make sure yours are up to date. End of story.
I believe she had an accomplice. If we are going to put her on blast, he is equally as guilty.
Let's get small businesses behind this as well.
Anti-vaxxers are not a protected class under the constitution and as such, business can flat-out deny service to them. I would happily give my business to any place that enforces and advertises "Anti-vaxxers not welcome."
Ostracism and ridicule are the only way we can get rid of these ideas.
I have a concern about this.
You don't change someones ideas when you shame them - you just make them less open and public about those ideas.
Truth is, I like my idiots loud and upfront. That's how I know who to ignore.
You're wrong.
Civilized, educated, intelligent people don't need to ridicule. We learn on the schoolyard playground not to ridicule.
Grow up.
If someone wants to reject the facts, that's their business, in a free country. Don't compound the problem by being an ass. Psychologically, there's something wrong with a person that feels a need to ridicule another, a deficiency that's compensated for when a person feels superior to another through ridiculing them.
If someone wants to reject the facts, that's their business, in a free country.
Normally, I'd be with you, but when someone's rejection of the facts means my kid is at risk of catching a mutated version of an almost-eradicated disease, I'm much less inclined to "live and let live".
If someone wants to reject the facts, that's their business, in a free country
Wrong, wrong, wrong. By not vaccinating their children, they endanger the lives of others. By spreading falsehoods, they increase the chance of more people not vaccinating their children, endangering the lives of others. A Free country does not mean that your freedom can cause harm to others and the revival, transmission and potential mutation of preventable diseases is not a civil liberty.
The point of the article is that there is an historical precedent for ridicule to work for social change and advocates that here, against people who are already causing real human deaths with their ignorance. If it works, fine. Let's fucking ridicule some idiots.
Adult discourse is fleeting, with shame and ridicule taking center stage. It's ok and accepted when "cool" people shame others; no one ever wants to be on the wrong side of cool and so they join in the juvenile display.
The very best resource about the Vaccine-Autism link is here: http://www.HowDoVaccinesCauseAutism.com
I'm all for making mandatory vaccination for all, but this article borders on hypocritical.
I'm skinny, so I'm allowed to fat-shame fat people now? Because it works? How about shaming other behaviors that might be harmful for society?
And don't give me the crap that fat people are not harmful for society because the cost of caring for obesity related illnesses and diseases is astronomical.
Sometimes I wonder if modern life is just too dull for everyone, and because of that, people gravitate towards conspiracies, manufactured issues, or some other drama that makes them feel alive; like they are in one of their favorite exciting stories. "But it's all a grand farce, and we are pioneers of a new world! The future will thank us, the unsung underdogs!"
Or maybe this is a more subtle side effect of some disastrous mutation of "religious freedom", where the right to believe what we wish religiously has infected (so to speak) the process of accepting a fact sitting clearly in front of us. Talk about neo-nihilism! Where we exercise the right to not believe our own eyes!
I disagree with ridiculing them on one major level. The function of ridicule is giving something attention. That's how someone as irrelevant as Jenny McCarthy wound up in a nationally syndicated show on network television. That alone can be all the cachet you need, in some people's mind, to start considering what McCarthy, or whoever, is saying seriously.
Shaming a Movement, Not Humiliating People
I think people are really, really bad at understanding the difference between these two things, and I think that even when they do, many people would prefer to humiliate others because it lets you feel morally and intellectually superior to another human being.
Counterpoint: Shaming anti-vaxers does NOT work, and shaming anti-vaxers is NOT the answer.
I love that science is finally winning out. Global warming, first. Now vaccines.
GMOs are next!
Dear Matt, you're probably well intended but suppressing a debate won't help.
Take a look at this article, from Natural News http://www.naturalnews.com/048519_vaccine... and see what science has to say about the recent measles outbreak you mention.
Pointing fingers at people shows you're so insecure that you need to demean them to try to prove your point. You can do better than that, Matt.
Take a look at this article, from Natural News http://www.naturalnews.com/048519_vaccine... and see what science has to say about the recent measles outbreak you mention.
Pointing fingers at people shows you're so insecure that you need to demean them to try to prove your point. You can do better than that, Matt.
Anyone interested in a good blog that has been covering the Anti-vax movement since at least the notorious Andrew Wakefield Lancet paper - I suggest checking out Respectful Insolence by Orac over at Science Blogs (one of the few blogs I still read over there since Seed was bought by NatGeo) or pop over to ScienceBasedMedicine blog (which I believe Orac above posts on SBM under his real name). Or any number of the blogs that left ScienceBlogs and headed over to FtB.
I have long wished that our culture acted a bit more like the Japanese. Here, great rewards make dishonorable behavior worthy of engaging in. Professional athletes use illegal performance-enhancing drugs in the hopes of an other-worldly payday. Even being found out after the fact... hey... they still got paid. Cheating on tests can lead to a higher station in life. Cheating on taxes can lead to having more money. We care little for personal honor. And yes, we have very little shame.
Tim Urban recently touched on a lot of these cultural differences in his post about spending time in Tokyo. It's a good piece.
The anti-vaccine movement should be ridiculed? For what purpose exactly? Is that what you left thinking believe? Of course it is. You fail to take into account the millions of illegals pouring into the country with zero vaccinations. You fail to take into account the lawsuits pending on Merk for their failure to produce a viable vaccine that worked, a multi billion dollar suit mind you. You fail to take into account the facts surrounding the CDC covering up statistics surrounding autism and vaccinations as reported by more than one whistleblower.
You resort to ridicule because you have no basis for your beliefs other than everyone else must be wrong. Ridicule is a weakness in every sense of the word because if there is evidence to the contrary about damaging vaccinations, parents are the only ones sticking up for their children, who the hell are you? You can ridicule all you want, but you won't have the stones to do it to their faces or step for that matter.
You resort to ridicule because you have no basis for your beliefs other than everyone else must be wrong. Ridicule is a weakness in every sense of the word because if there is evidence to the contrary about damaging vaccinations, parents are the only ones sticking up for their children, who the hell are you? You can ridicule all you want, but you won't have the stones to do it to their faces or step for that matter.
You fail. Now, fire away...
I don't like this but some people won't reconsider their opinions based on facts. When asked what evidence they would consider that vaccines don't cause autism some people say "nothing will change their mind". How do you deal with that? They admit that nothing will change their mind. So even if you explain the facts to them people still will take chances with their kids and other people's lives. This *shame* thing might be the only way people can be saved.
Yes. Exactly this.
Don't be quiet about it. Don't be TOLERANT about it.
We are learning, as a culture, greater and greater tolerance. And that is a good thing; particularly tolerance in diversity.
But don't overgeneralize that positive trend. Some things should not be tolerated.
These people are a public health menace. Their actions should not be tolerated. They should not be respected. Frankly, I could even argue that they potentially should not even be legal.
You passing out pitchforks and torches now? This "article" is ridiculous and irresponsible. Understand, I don't hold Gizmodo up as the paradigm of journalistic integrity, but as you are an ostensibly intelligent person capable of searching the Internet, I would expect more from you. My mistake. This is not discourse. This is Fox-level, mob-revving tripe.
In American culture, the linear relationship between publicity and public shame can and is often leveraged for social gain - the functional adage: any publicity is good publicity.
I think I agree with this in abstract (we need to support a culture where non-vaccination is not okay), but I'm struggling to see how this plays out in our everyday lives. How exactly do we shame the movement without humiliating individuals? If a friend espouses anti-vax views to me, how do I respond? If a doctor is faced with parents who don't want to vaccinate, what is he or she supposed to say? Isn't shaming the movement really the aggregate of many small individual humiliations?
Ridicule doesn't change people's minds so much as it shuts them up. I can see a culture slowly shifting over time, but how do we convince parents now to vaccinate their kids?
I think I know what this article is going for, but it does a poor job. Basically, it's saying that we need to make anti-vaxxers not something socially permissible. That's all well and good, but no one here has the power to shame someone on anything more than an individual level. Sure, any one of us could be an asshole about it, but all it does is make us an assholes.
I don't think shaming should be the goal. I think people just need to be made aware of how their viewpoint is unacceptable and not in line at all with scientific literature. Imagine if public schools were to prohibit the attendance of unvaccinated (without a truly good reason) children.
As an example, I am vaccinated with nearly the entire standard gamut. But there is one shot I simply cannot have because of allergy reasons (I forget which one). Contrast that with a friend I had that hadn't been vaccinated for what his mom put down as "religious reasons." Of course, there was no religious problem. She just bought into the whole anti-vaxxer movement. Years later I convinced my friend he (who had inherited his mother's views) of his wrongness. He later convinced her.
This isn't a fight people can win overnight. I used logic. I threw studies at him. It was the sustained pressure over years that finally broke him and his mother.
I think people have been trying to do this since the start of the whole anti-vaxing idiocy, but it hasn't worked yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered