Is Granny a Racist? Scotland’s Controversial Hate Crime Act Explained

The Hate Crime and Public Order Act was introduced on the 1st April 2024. For some, this act is a necessary evil in the Fight Against Hate. For others, it has all the potential of a misguided and potentially dangerous, April Fools’ prank. Article by Guy Boyle.

Institute is interested in ideas and the multitude of ways that they can be communicated across our increasingly complex culture. We champion creativity and the free expression of ideas. We create communications for brands, we help creatives develop their voices and we educate young people with the skills to succeed. Should we be telling them that they no longer have the breadth of expression that we enjoyed?

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 11th March 2021 and received Royal Assent on 23rd April 2021. What does it change, what’s all the fuss about and how might it be enforced? Let’s start at the beginning…

The Legal Context: The Council of Europe and The European Convention on Human Rights

This legislation builds on two previous acts. Those acts are The European Convention on Human Rights 1953 and the Public Order Act 1986.

The ECHR emerged from The Council of Europe and was drafted in 1950 and passed in 1953. With this bill, the citizens of Europe were granted the right to individual expression.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

It is important for us to understand the two part nature of this act. The tension between these two parts is the foundation for debate on this subject. Let’s break it down.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

It is worth noting that this act regards the people of Europe as citizens rather than subjects of any local monarchies. There are also similarities between this act and The American Declaration of Independence where one states Everyone and the other uses Human Events and Mankind to signal that this is a perspective that is believed to encompasses all of humanity. These are ideas that emerge out of the intellectual and moral frameworks of The Enlightenment and this is (in the words of the American Founding Fathers) the self evident lens through which we should understand and engage with humanity regardless of frontiers.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The second part highlights the duties and responsibilities that come with these freedoms in a democratic society. Article 17 describes how part 2 can be used in law to negate part 1 of Article 10.

This is where the citizens of contemporary society clash as we seek to define such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law. This implies that we are likely to create new laws that seek to in some way regulate how we express ourselves in regard to the protection of the reputation or rights of others.

It is clear that the ground on which we draw lines that separate these two perspectives, for many, is no longer self evident.

The Legal Context: The Public Order Act 1986

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

The Public Order Act 1986 Part 3 dealt with public safety in regard to race, specifically outlawing racial hatred. Let’s break this down. This is the text from this section of the act:

PART III

RACIAL HATRED Meaning of "racial hatred "

17. In this Part " racial hatred " means hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

Acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred

18.-(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reason- ably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

(5) A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

(6) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme broadcast or included in a cable programme service.

The act states that a crime is committed only if the perpetrator intends thereby to stir up racial hatred . It states that an offence may be committed in a public or a private place but caveats that with no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

This is where concepts start to become challenging. We don’t really think about this on a daily basis and when you put it into words it can be a little surprising. We could hold a conversation with a host of different people and disagree with the ways that they understand race. It’s incredibly circumstantial and even our use of terms in regard to race change over time. What is deemed racist may change across a cultural line, within a given community or over time. An institution committed to anti-racism may be deemed racist by someone that believes drawing attention to race in a given way, is itself racist.

This is actually not an anti racism law. No matter how ugly or uncomfortable we may find it, racism is not a legal offence. They way that we think and talk about race can be crude or nuanced and flip month by month. This law captures a belief that most people share- if someone intends to stir up racial hatred towards another race then they forfeit their right to personal expression. The words intention and hatred are key here. It should be noted that the words offence and debate are absent as they aren’t relevant. This is about someone intending to spread hatred, it has nothing to do with any potential perceived offence in the mind of any particular party. It is purely about defining intent and pointing to obvious hatred. The belief here is that people promoting hatred are not taking part within a reasonable debate. They are not upholding their duties and responsibilities as citizens of an enlightened society.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Why is this Act Controversial?

When defining terms within these legal frameworks the subject is called a protected characteristic. The choice of characteristics is important. We might not want to protect music or Marmite for example as we have some joyful tolerance for ‘hate’ within those areas.

The new Scottish act adds to race as a protected characteristic with the following: age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics. It aligns the concept of stirring up hatred in relation to these characteristics.

Although intent and hatred are included in a similar way to the 1986 bill, they are proceeded by this:

PART 2

Offences of stirring up hatred

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting…

This is a fundamental change. Intent has been swapped for a perception of threat, abuse or insult. As you can see this fits under the heading of stirring up hatred. Previously we only had to point to obvious hatred and understand the obvious intent behind this. Now an insult against a listed group is now considered an offence. The bill goes on to caveat this with calls back to the human rights act but it does so only after it has stated that behaviour that could be perceived as insulting is an actual offence.

This is where the act becomes problematic. It is part of the functionings of society to push at the boundaries of ideas as part of our duties and responsibilities as citizens of an enlightened society. Now we do have to actually worry about offence and how offence can be transformed into stirring up hatred. We cannot know how other people think and the time spent developing and testing ideas would in theory have to now be spent guessing what would offend any member of a currently selected group.

A Comedy of Errors?

To test if this idea make sense we could try a thought experiment. We could select the same groups as the bill or pick another set of groups. We could examine all comedy, film, tv, internet discussion, music, poster, book or home, pub or work discussion and look for those that felt insulted by any of those ideas from culture over time. We would have to turn huge parts of Scotland into prisons to cope with the biggest crime wave the UK has ever seen. Would Scotts be clambering across the border like those that attempted to flee East Berlin during the Cold War? Would we need to start burning books? This silly example highlights why this act is controversial. You can’t usually do that with laws. They usually just make sense. When you start to think that burning books (communicates to another person material that…) so that you aren’t insulted, the penny should drop that even if you believe that you’re right, you’re actually one of the bad guys.

If we considered the safeguard that these are infringements that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive… (and removed the word insulting) then it wouldn’t go that far. Precedent would be set. If that was the case, then why do we need the bill? Is it just badly worded and the real goal is to add to the list of protected characteristics? If we add the word insulting back in, then there is the potential (however ridiculous) that incredible situation could play out.

Our cultural communications often include a variety of different, engineered sets of insults and all reasonable people would agree that, yes, those insults are actually insults. It is vital that we all understand our laws and that those laws can encapsulate a spectrum of reasonable (and challenging) human behaviour. When you believe that those that insult you, belong in prison, it really is a slippery slope.

Lorcán Price, a barrister specialising in European and human rights law, explained the problem: “Say your friend made a joke in private that you found offensive. The possibility would be there to prosecute.” This may seem an unlikely outcome, but only one source is required to verify a hate crime – the supposed victim.

The consequences of current ambiguities in the law are already making themselves felt. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the UK in 1976, was given clarification by the UN Special Rapporteur in 2001. It recommends that any law prohibiting “hate speech” must ensure that “no one is penalised for true statements” and that “no one should be subject to prior censorship.”

Is Granny a Racist?

Another controversial aspect of the act is that private conversations within the home are not exempt. Have you ever felt insulted by a family member? This could add a whole new dimension to family get togethers. Never liked your 2nd cousin? Catch them out by flipping your pronouns and their next Hogmanay might be spent behind bars. Ever been disturbed by ideas held by a different generation? Now you have the mechanism to really set Granny to rights. There have many criticisms of the act by lawyers regarding the ability to enact revenge or pursue grudges, particularly within private environments. There have been 3800 complaints during the first 24 hours suggesting that there is currently an opportunistic aspect to the reporting of hate crimes. This will likely decrease as the police explain how they will set the bar with communicated guidance,

When you can easily draw parallels to an eager young member of the Hitler Youth informing on their parents or those that were encouraged to inform on work colleagues that held left wing affiliations during McCarthyism, it might indicate that even though it might be well intentioned, this act is probably a bad idea.

“This is an astonishing attack on freedom of expression which, read as I read it, threatens the publication of nearly all books published before the twentieth century”

— Francis Hoar. Barrister. Public law and human rights

Race in, Religion out

The section of the bill that covers protection of freedom of expression allows for discussion and criticism of topics related to the protected characteristics but the word (and allowance of) insult is reserved for religion. You are also allowed to dislike and ridicule religion. In terms of grading these characteristics, religion is firmly at the bottom of the list in terms of protection. If you’re a stand up comedian in Scotland, its official, religion is back on the menu. If want to cover anything else, you may need to segment your audience (and pray they aren’t insulted).

Making Room for a New Religon?

Is it going too far to draw parallels between a medieval religion with an accepted, enforced set of beliefs and the concept of a new, civil religion with it’s own set of beliefs that are enforced within a secular framework? There does seem to be an aspect of righteous zeal, a sense that this is the way to some kind of moral redemption. When conversations are monitored and certain viewpoints are deemed ‘heretical’, out of the scope for any conversation, there do appear to be overlapping factors that could be used to develop that argument.

The Pressure on the Police

The inherent problems with enforcing this act falls on the police force and the justice system. This change places an unprecedented power, and burden, in the hands of the police and courts to determine the criteria of a hate crime. David Kennedy, the General Secretary of the Scottish police Federation has stated that the main training resource for this act is a two hour online training course that is not fit for purpose and noted that ‘‘we are asking officers to police a law that they are unprepared for’’. Brent Haywood of Lindsays Lawyers explains that '‘Law should be certain and the citizen should know what conduct is or is not criminal’. Despite this, the Scottish Police force says that will will investigate every complaint. This is within the context of a list of offences that cannot be fully investigated due to lack of resources. It will be interesting to see how messaging changes after April 1st. Will the police encourage complaints relating to insults and behaviours like micro aggressions or focus on more established ideas about serious hate crime.

Concept Creep

It used to be taken for granted that we could debate freely and we were very aware of the steps that lead to physical harm. We just knew how it worked. This was within the context of the atrocities of the 20th century. You denigrate people with words and then actions and eventually you end up justifying murder. The word harm meant physical harm. The process of dehumanising through words spread through a specific culture and eventually built a context that enabled those in power to physically victimise a given group of people.

To distort this to the point where hearing something that you find offensive is, in itself, harm is a fundamental change to this rationale. This new claim must be justified on a case by case basis. It is concept creep that flies in the face of established wisdom and nuanced, workable frameworks.

If you want to ditch history and conventional wisdom, you have a hill to climb and you should be concerned any time that you achieve a victory. Smarter people than us developed these ideas within an historical context that enabled freedom of speech and incredible human flourishing. What could you be missing? What power could you be abusing? What impressionable minds are you changing? Article 10 highlights the need for responsibility.

Crossing Lines

We all want a better society but we have to very carefully way up our cures for ills. If we aren’t careful, our solutions to problems cause new problems. When we cross common sense lines in this manner we create a host of activity and anger that has nothing to do with the experience of real victims of prejudice and hate.

Links

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/what-is-the-european-convention-on-human-rights

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/pdfs/ukpga_19860064_en.pdf

https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf

https://www.lindsays.co.uk/news-and-insights/insights/an-analysis-of-scotlands-proposed-new-hate-crime-law-with-reaction

Design Jam: Dark Patterns

We recently held our first Design Jam with MA Graphic Design and Visualisation students from Loughborough University. We asked them: what are the changing roles and responsibilities for designers in an era of quasi-intelligent media?

DARK PATTERNS

The Design Jam was designed to fit within the MA courses Dark Patterns module and focused on some of the more questionable aspects of digital media tools and services with a focus on AI.

We broke the day down into two sets of discussion and activity. The first session set the scene but was followed a student research session to uncover potential new tools that might empower the students in their future professional practice. The second session developed the idea of integrity in terms of intent and usage of tools that resulted in the students developing a personal media manifesto.

We had an amazing day. Thanks to the students and staff for showing so much enthusiasm and really engaging with the subject matter. We live in interesting times and it really is up to us to shape the ways that we would like to work with OUR media.

FINDING MEANING

We are living through a complex time and it’s full of contradictions. Generally we are wealthier than we’ve ever been and yet we feel poor. We know that there is rising inequality but we cannot agree on ways to rectify it. We have access to more knowledge than we’ve ever had and yet we cannot solve fundamental issues. As our media has become more open and democratic, we can all have a voice and yet, the things we choose to say fall within increasingly narrow conceptual margins.

For the fist time in history, we are negotiating with our tools. These tools are created by a specific group of individuals, in a certain part of the world. This group includes those that have attended certain courses that have trained them to develop data driven, digital manipulation. That industry is lucrative and where there is money, there are a certain group of people ready to dive in and develop our digital futures. This group will have certain agendas and we are quite aware that the developers of a very social media might, just might, not be the most socially well rounded individuals.

This is the cultural landscape that a new generation of students must navigate as they define for themselves the nature of graphics and develop communications for themselves and for potential clients.

This is a world where brand is god, where marketing is all pervasive and right and wrong is dictated by algorithms. How do you deal with this? How do we prioritise personal agency and develop meaningful brands that accurately reflect business in motion?

IS CODE THE NEW DRAWING?

Those that have been to art college will be familiar with the mantra ‘drawing, drawing, drawing!’. As our digital media develops and our options for communication multiply, wouldn’t it be empowering for creatives to code? With AI assistance, this is now possible. Could creatives build interfaces and could they design systems that build generative identity systems? We are living through a gap between paradigms. There is the world before and after the advent of generative AI. There are incredible opportunities available. Each time we use AI it has the potential to offer up clues for new uses. This progression will be exponential and it’s important for creatives to be engaged in potential developments.

While industry markets creative tools to creatives, it is up to the creative community to find the ways to use the tools to fit their own agendas, within a broader cultural framework.

DEVELOPING MODULES FOR EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY

Institute seeks to help develop communications across disciplines and across the boundaries of education, practice, institution and industry. The more we share our knowledge and skills, the more we all benefit. We have to take cultural contradictions head on and become more collectively proactive as we build our joint futures.

If you’re interested in joining the dots or you’d like us to develop an education module for your course or business then get in touch. We’d love to hear from you.

Ama Dogbe's Game Engine Art

The tropes and cliches prevalent within the realms of computer gaming have been questioned for many years. As a broader demographic has become involved not only in the playing of games but in the development of games, the landscape has shifted.

This change has been in part powered by the groundswell in the number of quality Independent game studios and the availability of new, powerful and affordable software. When this kind of software becomes available, it doesn’t take much time for creatives to develop an understanding of this new media and imagine new ways to solve old problems. This often includes: how do I express myself?

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Ama Dogbe is a young British-Ghanaian artist whose practice sits within digital realms. She has produced experimental animation of various kinds and is currently developing video games using a variety of self-taught digital mediums. The work on show at Institute was created with Unity

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

We presented two new game demos by Ama: Alien Invasion - No. 1607221 and Alien Invasion - Compartmentalising, as part of an audio-video installation. In Alien Invasion - No. 16072216, figures descend upon a garden-like world, and players follow paths to uncover talismans, relics and icons.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Using physical and digital repetition through photogrammetry (the process of creating 3D digital outcomes from photographs), Ama created a web of symbols that were both strange and familiar. The project was commissioned by MPND and funded by Arts Council England.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

This event ran as part of Loughborough Lates, a free event open to the general public. The games ran on Mac computers and through Institutes exhibition screens. They were playable with PS4 controllers. It was intriguing to see children and adults engage with art in ways that they probably never have before.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

The controllers would be familiar to some as would some of the game-like mechanics of navigation but the visual language and the use of space and the meaning of symbols were unique and had to be de-cyphered by the user.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

There is much that we have learnt over the last few decades from digital gaming. We have created new worlds and developed communities as we populated them with our digital selves. We have negotiated time and money in favour of rewards and we have traded assets that resulted from our digital endeavours. We have become addicted and also frustrated- we have expressed the joy and anger of the physical world in virtual worlds. We’ve made friends and enemies. We’ve built clans, communities and businesses. We’ve stolen, we’ve conned, we’ve married, we’ve grieved. We’ve changed race and gender (often for a fee). We’ve planted crops and harvested them. We’ve built our own houses, developed new mythologies and made friends with people across continents.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

As we move forward with VR, AR and the eventual mix of both, it is important that we capitalise on the learnings from gaming- the good and the bad so that we might capture the joy and empowerment that gaming can foster. It is also important that artists are equipped with the software and skills of new media technology as it emerges so that inquisitive, potentially contrarian voices become part of the discourse that develops our digital futures.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

You will be able to see an online version of the project between 3rd November 2023 - 27th January 2024. The game is accompanied by a soundtrack of electronic, ambient and contemporary hip-hop by musician Louis Jack. The video game will be available to play via the Modern Painters, New Decorators website.

You can see also see more of Ama’s work here: https://www.instagram.com/artyfartyama/ and download Unity here: Download Unity.

Dum-Dum Bullets

It has long been a role of the arts to hold up a critical mirror to society. In uncertain times, where so many things that we should hold dear are in potential jeopardy, we feel obliged to evaluate and critique, ideas that we find to be harmful or unproductive in nature.

These ideas could be as simple as 'influencers' peddling nonsense to young creatives, marketeers promoting 'content' over meaningful communications through to the propagation of dangerous social and political agendas.

CRITICISM IS GOOD

This is about developing ideas and its happening in real time, here and on social media. There is no universal right and also, no wrong. All we really have is our ability to develop our ideas and convince others that they could be useful. These ideas become stronger when they confronted with criticism and adapt to become more fit for purpose. They may drastically change or be discarded as they fail to prove themselves. We invite you to engage with us on social media and discuss the development of these ideas (as well as your own) and examine the ways that we can communicate them across our cultures.

#DUMDUM

Expanding bullets were given the name Dum-dum, or dumdum, after an early British prototype produced in the Dum Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta, India. Expanding bullets, also known colloquially as dumdum bullets, are projectiles designed to expand on impact. This project is a critique of certain social media ‘content’, behaviour and communications. It is hoped that any shots to the metaphorical head, expand the conversation. Social media posts linked to this project will carry the #DUMDUM hashtag.

“I hear the roar of a big machine
Two worlds and in between
Love lost
Fire at will
Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill
I hear dive bombers and
Empire down
Empire down”

— The Sisters Of Mercy

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Our battleground for this debate will be social media platforms. Most platforms have mechanisms to post video or images and then the opportunity to add text. This is often accompanied by hashtags. Hashtags are used as the vehicle to find posts related to a subject. Posts are usually related back to a profile. These platforms are usually free to use.

Can these platforms be used differently? Are we worshipping the algorithms and following the prescribed commandments as we fail to consider how things could be better? Do we have to play along and if that is the case, wont we spend all of our time and energy doing that rather than criticising it? How will things change if we all carry on in the same way, where the only difference is the flavour of the ‘content’?

These are the front facing tools and they are simple to use. We are examining the nature of these platforms and choose how we behave. The only constrains we have, we largely impose ourselves. If our communications hit a given tripwire, then the account could be banned. In that situation we may decide to create another account.

We’d like to think that this sits in a removed framework from ‘trolling’, ‘toxicity’ and ‘safe spaces’ and falls within the sphere of cultural criticism and debate. We could be deceiving ourselves. That’s for you to decide.

We know that each new generation of tools has its own characteristics. Our tools have never had their own agenda. A shovel didn’t want to dig up a given amount of soil a day. A pen didn’t feed back on the success of your letter and your letter wasn’t peer reviewed by people that you will never meet, across the globe. It seems that we have more to think about than we ever have but at a time when we are more distracted than we’ve ever been. 

If a post or advert is put online on a social media platform then it comes with certain propositions. There is a way to signal positively with a like. What does this mean? does it signal interest in the ideas presented, the creator of the work or interest from the viewer? If some is talking about their business and there is the chance to comment and this media is ‘social’ what are the parameters for the conversation? Is the viewer invited to break down and discuss the viability of the business as they see it? Should they feedback on their understanding of the success of this kind of advertising? Are the lines blurred between promotion and the recording of day-to-day activity? How aware are we of that strategy and the implications for human behaviour?

We will take the view that everything and anything is up for discussion regardless of current norms. This means that any post promoting an idea or business, is an open invitation for productive criticism.

We will only be able to entertain the idea of development and change with our media if we examine it from the top down. We need to decide if it is our media- the means that we choose to communicate or if we are products within it, that should behave in certain ways. It may be that Critical Theory turns towards social media and this could be a precursor to that but in the mean time, we might argue that there is a long established tradition of cultural critique.

HIERARCHIES

We will take the stance that there is a very real structural hierarchy and that cultural communications should be aware of that. We will start with the planet. Then human survival. Then our cultural, political and social systems. Then our industries and their brands and their marketing. Finally we end with a individual- their chosen career and their potential for meaning and happiness within the framework above. An example of this might be an individual receiving dopamine hits from ‘likes’ on social media as they promote a greenwashing campaign that could cause harm to our planet. Social media encourages us to forget the pragmatic realities that we could use to develop priorities and replaces them with agenda-laden algorithms requiring aligned human behaviours.

ROLEPLAYING HUMANS

Algorithms encourage conflict and rewards are superficial, encouraging us to act in curious ways as we interact online. This is coupled with received wisdom within the marketing community that turns the ways that we generate ideas and then from this, generate communications, upside down. ‘Tone of Voice’ is a phrase that is now common place and focuses on how communications ‘feel’. The way our communication feels used to directly relate to it’s intent. This had defined our communications for millennia and its very involved. But something changed. The idea that meaning and intent is not only, not important, but should not even be considered, takes us to a very strange place. Chat GTP and other predictive text systems are often used as enablers that help to fabricate this ‘content’.

We are finding, through online conversations that marketeers and those wishing to promote themselves often know very little about the subjects that they purport to cover. When questioned about the meaning of their words, many will become very uncomfortable. It does appear that genuine conversations about the nature of ideas now only take up a small percentage of the communications that are pitched as idea conversations.

INTEGRITY

Being seen to be an informed, professional, aware, connected, employable, secret-sauce-holding idea expert, is much more important than genuine expertise. We would argue that an individuals ability to develop knowledge, skills and integrity is diminished when presented with these superficial goal posts. We will examine the idea of ‘integrity’ in play, from many angles. We might discuss an ethical dilemma in industry but also examine the structural integrity of a concept going from the initial idea to an eventual outcome such as an advert or claim of knowledge.

It seems absolutely acceptable for us to mark the change from an older platform for advertising like a billboard that has no elements of interaction to a platform that encourages interaction. We are used to a passive intrusion on our sense with a traditional ad but limit ourselves when we have the chance to discuss one of these ads. Our stance: any promotional material presented in a social media context is presenting itself- the company or individual behind it and the promotion, for critique.

EXPECTED LOSES

This is a research and development project focused on the nature of the Marketing community as it communicates on social media. We will poke it with a stick and observe the things that crawl out from beneath it’s shadow. We will be critical and in doing so, suggest context. When there is a community that is fond of phrases like ‘thinking outside the box’, how might they feel when a specific box is described? Do they actually perceive it? Would they prefer that it wasn’t mentioned? It’s apparent that we are coming at this with some prejudice. We are. We do believe that certain behaviours and perspectives are damaging and we are critical of them. Let’s see how it all plays out…

IS THIS MARKETING?

No and…yes. We feel compelled to criticise the contemporary state of play. We would do that on social media, regardless of benefit. We work in this field and are constantly disappointed by the behaviour and self serving advice of some marketeers. It doesn’t have to be this way. The opportunities that our contemporary set of media tools offer us is staggering and we see this empowerment made manifest across our screens. But there is a cost to human agency when we accept, without question, that the code that these tools run on, wants to manipulate us.

We have to come back to our own hierarchy. We feel compelled to take actions like this, because we believe that it is the right thing to do. We may make enemies, we make make friends. We may end up working with someone as a result of one of these cultural bullets hitting the right person at the right time. If that happens, we could say it’s marketing as we end up selling a service. Regardless of that potential, this project is focused on investigation. An investigation into the nature of contemporary marketing.

UPDATE: WHAT IS OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR?

To draw certain substantive conclusions would require an in-depth set of surveys that produced quality data around certain behaviours. This isn’t that. This is an examination of communication within the Marketing industry from the point of view of those inhabiting this world. An examination of received wisdom and working practices linked to industry concepts.

We believe that we are almost exclusively engaging with intelligent, educated, media-savvy individuals. Unless we delve into the bowls of more exclusive communities then this is probably to be expected.

The pattern does seem to be that the priorities for posters are self promotion of some kind. There seems to be rules of conduct that are taken for granted. We might call this a ‘Culture of Content Creation’. There is a belief that there is a unique ‘essence’ that exists for each individual and that this is also available to a business or organisation. This quickly translates into ‘brand’ and brand is what you need to communicate effectively. There is an idea that this is ‘unlocked’, that it exists in a metaphorical DNA. The building blocks of this ideas DNA are ‘values’. We value values and values are valuable are monetary and cultural currency and they are essentially the same thing. Or one is required for another. Something like that.

Communicating these values, a ‘value proposition’ comes next. If we can just manage to communicate this, then success is the next step. Success is defined as that thing that validates your values. Your life, your brand, centred around those values is supported financially to flourish and then thrive.

It’s all very wholesome isn’t it? It’s the American Dream. But we know that these systems have their faults and there are casualties. There is good data for the affects of social media on young people. If Critical Theory turns its gaze on SM as an entity in itself, it might deal with inequities relating to power but we are interested in the integrity of ideas and their communication as part of a community that holds responsibility for the actual communications.

Back to ‘content’. The general stance is that post commenting should fit within certain rules. Posts will often have very obvious, bland proclamations like: ‘don’t force creativity’. The viewer scrolling past a sea of neverending posts is expected to hit a ‘like’ icon if this post resonates with them. The bar is incredibly low but it is expected that this is the norm and that’s okay. The nature of what ‘resonates’ and why is quite primal (for want of a better word) and would probably overlap with the human version of a dog wagging it’s tail.

Comments that endorse the post for it’s profound or more likely, inane positivity are the expectation. If you experience any thoughts or emotions out of this range, then you continue to scroll. There is no record of more sophisticated ideas. There is no mechanism that can highlight a desire for change. This system rewards the superficial and even though the mechanisms for ANY conversation are present, we, as humans have decided that this is a step too far.

Is any of this news? Probably not. But it is very rarely discussed within the available conversational mechanisms of social media. We are seeing very little behaviour that questions the system. We are seeing those that push the system to the limit for themselves and on behalf of their lucky (or discerning) clients. Advertising continues to push the boundaries as it finds itself on new media platforms. But this activity is usually confined to the creation of assets rather than any social aspect that isnt manipulative in nature.

It might be useful to break things down and look at these components afresh. Whatever the ‘content’, there is usually a mechanism available for discussion. We might have more power than we realise and we might be able to discuss more things and in broader terms. We might find that positive change can come from within, from us. Is it unreasonable to imagine the ways that we could develop a potential check list for change if we discussed it and defined it? We might more freely acknowledge that we are setting rules for ourselves and these rules encourage us to be a little less human that we need to be. If we value individuality, why do we act like a pack? Is there a space that we could develop that ignores ‘trolling’ at one end and banality at the other and more closely resembles productive cultural criticism?

We do not need to be poltergeists, haunting our media, content to hurl ‘content’ around our virtual spaces. We could be more present with more tangible aspects of our humanity at play.