Aggressive criticism and its appropriateness

Today we observe the use of aggressive criticism performed, for instance, by Alexander Nevzorov. It is no secret that most of his posts during the war period are executed in a harsh manner toward Russians. The subjective perception of many of us suggests that this is a losing strategy — after all, it can cause rejection and reduces the likelihood of consensus. Nevertheless, Nevzorov’s channel experienced a real explosion of growth, and today has over a million subscribers (perhaps the growth occurred primarily at the expense of the Ukrainian audience, but most of the comments on the channel are written in Russian). A harsh delivery demonstrates success even at the highest levels — thus, in 2023, the presidential election in Argentina was won by the right-wing populist Javier Milei, who called entire groups of people “shit” and said: “They are all worms, parasites, fucking freeloaders, we should give them all to Bolivia so that there are no parasite provinces left in Argentina”¹. That is, practice shows that a harsh delivery of information does not always lead to a decrease in popularity: sometimes people who use it experience an explosion of popularity. So the hypothesis that it “repels people” does not correspond to reality — it would be more accurate to say that in a portion of cases it repels. In reality, it repels far from always. But why does this happen?

Shame as a decision-making factor

First of all, we need to note two scientific facts. First, we must record that decision-making is influenced by many factors besides the presentation of material. For instance, a study by Ellen Peters showed that decision-making is influenced, among other things, by previously received education². Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio proved that emotions play one of the key roles in decision-making³. Therefore, of course, insults and aggression definitely influence decision-making. But how exactly? If one calls a person, for example, a “slave” (suppose while presenting certain arguments), what reaction will this evoke — counter-insults, indifference, or a desire to change the situation?

Here we must move on to the second fact and record that shame and guilt are among the factors affecting motivation. For example, the authors of the study “Shame and the Motivation to Change the Self” showed that when people experienced shame, guilt, and embarrassment, it contributed to the desire to change⁴. Psychology Today magazine, referencing Kazimierz Dąbrowski, notes that “shame is an important, but ultimately only a first step, on the path toward personal growth”⁵. The study “Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency” concludes: “social-moral emotions such as shame are key to preventing moral transgressions in both public and private settings”⁶. Materials from Cambridge University note that “shame is a useful emotion for organizing people’s motivation to get work done”⁷. Naturally, we remember that not only shame and not even only emotions as a whole influence decision-making, so by themselves they will not force people to do something. However, we cannot deny that they can become one of the factors that will.

Therefore, if we recognize the above two facts, we inevitably also recognize that if we oppose the aggressive criticism of the conditional Nevzorov, we thereby block one of the decision-making factors toward which he pushes his audience. For us, as democrats, this is acceptable if a person mocks democracy, a high standard of living, and other progressive values. We in this case need to block such aggressive criticism. However, if a person mocks truly disgraceful phenomena, such as support for military aggression in Ukraine, groveling before Vladimir Putin, and so on — then blocking such aggressive criticism is working against recognizing these phenomena as shameful and, as a consequence, against the further transformation of society.

Different people have different motivations. For example, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that “when somebody underestimated me, I wanted to prove them wrong”⁹. Eleven-time English champion Paul Scholes admitted that he did not like compliments, preferring criticism and the opportunity to prove his critics wrong¹⁰. Baseball legend Derek Jeter says the same thing: “I love it when people doubt me. It makes me work harder to prove them wrong”¹¹. Comedian Chris Rock stated that bullying by classmates motivated him to achieve success in life and become famous; roughly the same was said by 23-time Olympic champion Michael Phelps¹². That is, we have groups of people who consider a negative delivery of material regarding them to be useful. On these groups of people, it is better to act with such a delivery; on groups of people who consider explanations in a neutral key to be useful for them — it is better to act with a different delivery. If different media outlets engage in this, it does not interfere with one another, as long as someone does not decide that pitting these media outlets against each other would be a good idea.

Political use

A constructive reaction to the Russophobic statements of Nevzorov and others would be to show them to one’s acquaintances, using them as an argument to involve these acquaintances in politics in order to prevent these statements from prevailing in public opinion. But if instead a person prefers to attack Nevzorov, the question arises as to whose side he is on.

We know quite a few examples of very popular politicians in their time who used harsh criticism. If the assumption that it repels people were true, it would be logical if they had not become popular, let alone achieved important public posts. However, in reality, harsh statements did not repel most people, but rather on the contrary, contributed to achieving public shame, which would influence decision-making by that society. Below are examples of such statements by extremely popular politicians (including non-democratic and even anti-democratic ones, this is a separate issue, here we consider only the presence of political results):

I say plainly that every American who takes part in the action of a mob or gives it any sort of countenance is no true son of this great Democracy, but its betrayer, and does more to discredit it… How shall we commend democracy to the acceptance of other peoples, if we degrade our own by proving that it, after all, does not protect the weak¹³?

No one is to blame for being born a slave; but a slave who not only eschews strivings for his freedom but justifies and embellishes his slavery… is a lackey and a boor who inspires a legitimate feeling of indignation, contempt, and disgust¹⁴.

Virtue is a natural passion, but how could it be known to these corrupt souls, which always open only to vile and cruel passions, these miserable intriguers, who never link patriotism with any moral idea, who follow in the revolution behind some important and ambitious personage, behind some despicable prince, just as our footmen once followed their masters¹⁵.

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one¹⁶.

Together with all of the above, this allows us to say that aggressive criticism is one of the factors that can change society’s moral assessment of a particular phenomenon. If we manage to make the fact of inaction against the lawlessness of the authorities shameful and disgraceful, this increases the chance that fewer people will remain inactive; if we manage to make the fact of participating in wars of aggression shameful and disgraceful, this increases the chance that fewer people will participate in such wars. Making this shameful and disgraceful will be difficult without emotional assessments that will be perceived as aggressive criticism. Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet “Common Sense”, which, as Britannica writes, had a very important influence on the American Revolution¹⁷, wrote:

Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men who cannot see; prejudiced men who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three… if you say, you can still pass it over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant¹⁸.

Appealing to consciousness by giving a disgraceful coloring to unworthy behavior is something many opinion leaders engaged in. Only in some cases people followed them, while in others they did not follow, and perhaps even reacted negatively. If opinion leaders used aggressive criticism and disgraceful coloring of unworthy behavior, but in some cases we had a democratic revolution and in others a shameful defensive reaction with accusations against the opinion leaders, then who is to blame — opinion leaders or their audience?

Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, despite the fact that it scolded those Americans who acted, in his view, unworthily, and despite containing a number of rather controversial assertions, sold 120,000 copies in 3 months, and was read in taverns and meetinghouses¹⁹. That is why the American Revolution took place — what was needed was not only opinion leaders, but also their support in society. But if society does not support leaders who call for a democratic revolution (it is not necessary to participate oneself for this; to begin with, it will be enough simply not to interfere) — then in the absence of such a revolution, it is not opinion leaders who are to blame, but current generations of society. If people, instead of rising up against injustice, choose to blame the one who shamed them for inaction — such people deserve to be insulted.

Here we should also touch upon another important question. Namely, that in the conditions of a repressive authoritarian regime, changing society through democratic means and through enlightenment becomes extremely difficult (given the fierce repression that has fallen upon enlightenists), and for those who fundamentally dislike the prospect of living 70 years under authoritarian rule, only the armed path remains. Pushing people toward it is an extremely difficult task, but if people are not ready even for aggressive criticism, then how will they be ready to carry out revolutionary violence, which is a much harsher form of struggle? It is obvious that people who block the use of aggressive criticism push revolutionary struggle away to an unreachable distance. It is understandable that we all want a bloodless revolution, but it may not turn out to be such, and in that case one will have to shoot back. Without hatred toward the oppressors and those who take their side, it will be extremely difficult to resort to extreme measures, even if your life depends on it. It is also logical to assume that in the event of an armed uprising, such people will take the side of the authorities (actively or silently) — after all, they consider even aggressive criticism unacceptable, so what can be said about revolution?

For what else can aggressive criticism be used? To draw attention to issues. For example, head coach of the Russian national team Valery Karpin, after the decision to conduct a match in snowfall conditions, stated that only a “retard” could make the decision to play a match in such weather. To the question of why he allowed himself such statements, Karpin replied:

If I had expressed myself more calmly and correctly, this match would have been forgotten the next day. All this trash and discussions afterward were only thanks to those words that I said on air. If I had said it differently, no one would have even started raising the topic of changing the regulations. In order for people to get worked up, sometimes one has to speak in this kind of language. This is terrible. But for someone to pay attention to some issue, one has to speak like this²⁰.

Indeed, holding football matches in weather that turns the game into a farce is unacceptable. Passivity on the part of the RPL management in this matter, which pays no attention to calm remarks and wishes, is also unacceptable. But the use of such harsh language by the coach of the national team is also very undesirable. How should one act in this case? Assessing all factors in total, we understand that the passivity of the RPL and conducting football games in bad weather are in total more harmful than the use of harsh language. Therefore, to fight them, its use is permissible. Research shows that people pay much more attention to negativity, even if it is expressed not toward them²¹. Therefore, negativity can be a way to draw attention to a problem if a calm delivery does not elicit a response from the audience.

Not forgetting about multi-factor nature

Does the above mean that there are no cases where aggressive criticism is inappropriate? No, because we must not forget about the many factors that should be taken into account when performing various actions. For example, two cases — when aggressive criticism is used to encourage people to fight for their rights and when aggressive criticism is used to restrict a certain nationality in rights — are two completely different cases. While social democrats are tolerant of the first, the second is unacceptable. Calling the residents of a certain city “slaves” with the goal of encouraging them to prove the opposite is far from the same as encouraging other groups of people, for instance, to deprive the residents of this city of civil rights. These are two different cases with opposite goals — while the first is permissible as one of the methods of motivation to fight, the second is unacceptable for democrats.

Of course, the setting should be taken into account. For example, Nevzorov can use strong expressions on his channel, but if he uses them during speeches in parliament, this should not be allowed. Parliament is a place for constructive proposals, not for humorous speeches. Such statements are also unacceptable at scientific conferences. If Nevzorov’s channel is half-humorous, and his readers should understand (if they do not suffer from schizophrenia or similar disorders) that a significant part of his statements carries a humorous, not a scientific character, then at scientific conferences it is permissible to transmit only scientific information. It is very important against whom you use aggressive criticism. It is counterproductive to use it against responsive people who are ready to reach a consensus. In this case, its use creates a conflict out of nowhere.

One should not lose sight of other factors either. For example, if you are in a community that bans for insults, it is better not to resort to this type of communication, since instead of a result you will get a ban, respectively the benefit of such criticism is neutralized, and the point in using it is lost. You should not use it on that part of the intelligent audience that is clearly more inclined to dialogue than to polemical battles “to the end” — you will simply be considered aggressive and inadequate, hardly listening to what you said. In fact, the use of aggressive criticism should be conducted by a person who well understands the whole complexity of this tool.

Dominant behavior

A slightly broader concept than aggressive criticism is dominant behavior in a group. It implies not only the use of shame, but also such components as increased activity in spreading one’s premises, tough confrontation with opponents, and so on. When it comes to behavior in a group, we see that our rivals often use dominant behavior as a weapon to achieve their goals. The point is that, entering a group, carriers of such behavior begin to act loudly, defiantly, thereby drawing attention to themselves and pulling part of the group to their side, guided either by their sense of contradiction and doubt regarding the general course of the group, or simply forcing them to change their beliefs under pressure. A typical example is the Tribune group in the Labour Party. The leader of the Conservatives, Margaret Thatcher, spoke about them in this way:

– In 1959, the number of far left in the Labour party could be counted on the fingers of two hands. There were, perhaps, seven or eight. We knew who they were. We all rather thought that this was just an example of eccentricity of British politics that allows such things.

– The so-called “Tribune group”?

– Yes. And in a way, I was proud of its existence. Now, after the last election, they have become more than 80. One feature of left-wing politicians — they are always fanatical. They never stop. It’s their religion. They go on and on. And although they are a minority in the Labour party, about 80-100 people out of 300, they tend to dominate it. As it seems to me, it is the left wing that leads the policy of the Labour party, and your social democrats do not argue with them. Although they were in the majority, they were not winning²².

After some time, the “Far left” of whom Thatcher spoke completely received at their disposal the position of leader in the party (it became Jeremy Corbyn). However, everything should be exactly the opposite, and all the more so in Russian politics. If social democrats are a minority, then in some cases we can compensate for this with dominant behavior. That is, we must speak more, broadcast social democratic ideas more, broadcast criticism of other ideas more, actively argue and dominate in the debate over our opponents. We must not retreat. All this can be done within correct boundaries. A typical example of such behavior can be observed in the film “Crimson Tide”.

As we can see, Denzel Washington’s character first tries to convince the submarine captain in a good way, politely and with argumentation, but, having made sure that these methods do not work on him, and the captain’s position threatens catastrophic consequences, he resorts to dominant behavior — does not agree with orders, raises his voice in response to the exact same actions of the captain, demonstrates readiness to use force. According to the plot, if the executive officer (played by Washington) had silently submitted to the captain’s order, the submarine would have launched nuclear missiles at the territory of Russia, which would have led to a nuclear war. And those around showed indecisive behavior by not intervening — only the determination of the executive officer was the factor that changed the situation. Our task is not to be silent observers, but to be those who change the situation.

In many team sports, there is a playing position known as an “enforcer”. If we speak of hockey (which is mainly associated with this position), these are power players who often fought during matches²³. Most often, enforcers do not score many goals and do not stand out with great technique, but these players are ready to fiercely confront opponents and hit on the verge of rule violations. Initially, the main task of enforcers was to protect the players of their team. If an opponent played dirty or excessively hard, the enforcer could fight him in order to tame the brazen opponent in this way. The opportunity to get hit in the face by a tough guy motivated many hockey players to play against an opponent more temperately. For example, Wayne Gretzky, one of the best players in hockey history, had his own “bodyguard” on the ice — enforcer Dave Semenko²⁴.

If we speak of this in relation to politics, we often have to observe how new groups of people coming to a community try to establish their own order there. This can be a group of yesterday’s statism supporters who have not quite bid farewell to many of their stereotypes coming into a democratic organization, or, for example, a group of yesterday’s communists who merged into a social democratic organization. As in the case with the Tribune group, they can be quite organized and exhibit dominant behavior. If there are no “enforcers” in the organization, there is a high probability that the newcomers will simply “bend” the organization to themselves, “bullying” those most proactive and ideologically driven who can prevent them from promoting their narratives, and intimidating the rest, imposing their opinion on them, and so on. To protect the organization from this, clear and well-enforced rules and/or a few “enforcers” are needed.

But this is also true for the opposition community as a whole. It is impractical to have only “herbivorous”, intellectual forces in the opposition. New people who have not quite bid farewell to their stereotypes will come to the opposition, and if they are allowed to dominate the information field, such an opposition may cease to be an opposition, becoming merely a “milder” version of regime supporters that generally shares its values. That is partly why, alongside intellectual and reasonable media, harsh “transmitters” can also play a useful role. Just as well, it is impractical to have only combat squads of opposition and media that broadcast only a harsh position calling for the armed conquest of freedom. Yes, a certain part of the audience wishes to hear a harsh position, but a certain part does not. Therefore, the position that “those who are not ready to conquer democracy with weapons are not opposition” is equally incorrect and misses the simple fact that people are different, the stages of their evolution as oppositionists are different, and the opposition is different.

Conclusion

We should not consider aggressive criticism as the only correct or priority way of presenting information. For example, our magazine (“Logic of Progress”) is unlikely to use it. We work for a somewhat different audience. At the same time, blocking aggressive criticism from other democrats means working against the democratic movement as a whole, since it is one of the permissible components of the fight against authoritarians.

1. E. Bai. The Argentine Chameleon. How an Far-Right Eccentric and Philosemite Became President of Argentina // The Insider (theins.ru). December 8, 2023. [Online resource]. URL: https://theins.ru/opinions/bay/267388 (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
2. E. Peters. Educating good decisions. Behav Public Policy. 2017 Nov; 1(2): 162-176.
3. Antonio Damasio // TED (www.ted.com). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.ted.com/speakers/antonio_damasio (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
4. B. Lickel, K. Kushlev, V. Savalei, S. Matta, T. Schmader. Shame and the motivation to change the self. Emotion. 2014 Dec; 14(6): 1049-61.
5. Lisa Rivero M.A. Shame and Motivation to Change // Psychology Today (www.psychologytoday.com). January 29, 2015. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/creative-synthesis/201501/shame-and-motivation-to-change (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
6. T. Bonavia, J. Brox-Ponce. Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 14; 13(2): e0191990.
7. P. Stiles. The negative side of motivation: the role of shame // Cambridge Judge Business School (www.jbs.cam.ac.uk). July 2008. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/wp0807.pdf (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
8. M. van Alphen. Shame and Decision-making // Markus van Alphen (marcusvanalphen.com). December 2004. [Online resource]. URL: https://marcusvanalphen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Shame-and-decision-making.pdf (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
9. L. Capretto. The Powerful Message That Helped Condoleezza Rice Thrive Amid Racism In The ’60s (VIDEO) // HuffPost (www.huffpost.com). January 27, 2015, 10:09. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/condoleezza-rice-growing-up_n_6549632 (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
10. Critics led Paul Scholes to successful comeback at Manchester United // The Mirror (www.mirror.co.uk). September 26, 2010, 00:00. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/critics-led-paul-scholes-to-successful-1692616 (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
11. Faith and Doubt // Yeshiva University (www.yu.edu). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Faith%20and%20Doubt%20in%20the%20Modern%20Age.pdf (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
12. M. Abadi. 9 wildly successful people who were bullied as kids // Yeshiva University (www.yu.edu). December 11, 2017, 07:31. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.businessinsider.com/successful-people-who-were-bullied-2017-12?r=US&IR=T (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
13. W. Wilson. Statement Deploring Mob Spirit // The American Presidency Project (www.presidency.ucsb.edu). July 26, 1918. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-deploring-mob-spirit (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
14. V.I. Lenin. Collected Works. Fifth Edition. Vol. 26. July 1914 – August 1915. – 590 p. – M.: Publisher of Political Literature, 1969. – p. 108.
15. M. Robespierre. Selected Works in Three Volumes. Vol. 3. – 318 p. – M.: Nauka, 1965. – p. 211.
16. A. Hamilton. The Warning No. III // Founders Online (founders.archives.gov). February 21, 1797. [Online resource]. URL: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-20-02-0330 (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
17. Philip S. Foner. Thomas Paine // Encyclopedia Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Online resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Paine (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
18. T. Paine. Common Sense // Brian Loveman (loveman.sdsu.edu). 1776. [Online resource]. URL: https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1776ThomasPaine.pdf (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
19. K. Hong. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, 1776 // Brandeis University (www.brandeis.edu). August 2, 2015. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.brandeis.edu/library/archives/essays/special-collections/paine.html (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
20. M. Khrushch. “Until a rooster pecks you in the ass — nobody moves”. Karpin on his words about “retards” // Championat (www.championat.com). February 1, 2024, 11:28. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.championat.com/football/news-5417790-poka-petuh-v-zhopu-ne-klyunet-nikto-ne-shevelitsya-karpin-o-svoih-slovah-pro-debilov.html (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
21. E. Akimova. Scientists discovered the reaction of the human brain to insults and compliments // RBC (www.rbc.ru). July 20, 2022, 13:40. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/life/news/62d7e4049a7947640d966da0 (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
22. Tony Blair // PBS (www.pbs.org). March 22, 2019. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/tony-blair-hvixhi/ (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
23. Who are the enforcers? Stories of hockey players remembered not for their play, but for fights on the ice // Onliner (people.onliner.by). January 27, 2022, 10:00. [Online resource]. URL: https://people.onliner.by/2022/01/27/kto-takie-tafgai (Accessed: 06.03.2024).
24. A. Seredintsev. “The NHL didn’t have a rule not to touch Gretzky, but that rule was Semenko”. An enforcer loved even by rivals // Sports.ru (www.sports.ru). February 8, 2019, 10:30. [Online resource]. URL: https://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/oilfever/2319772.html (Accessed: 06.03.2024).