Aggression, Virtual Spaces, and Mental Health: Or, A Callout of Callout Culture

It is important to respond in opposition to problematic or offensive statements regardless of intent; otherwise, no learning can take place and damage goes unchecked. However, it is also important to do so in a way that does not trigger those with prior mental health issues, such as PTSD (which I have), depression, or anxiety disorders. A lot of the ways calling out takes place in various virtual circles today — particularly so-called “safe spaces” — can be especially harmful for those in the midst of PTSD or depressive episodes, anxiety, in recovery from or struggle with substance abuse, and/or have other mental health conditions. Continued behaviors — mocking, repeatedly dredging up incidents in public spaces, dissemination of private information — even well after a conversation — can be especially damaging. Such behavior can trigger panic attacks, suicidal thoughts, or other self-harm, and can cause a person to spiral quite quickly.

In at least six separate, recent contexts I have been informed that such behavior — which is honestly counter-productive and immature — can be excused by the problematic nature of a comment or dynamics of other privileged-non-privileged/advantage-disadvantage/high-low status axes.

I vehemently disagree.

Firstly, no site of oppression or privilege gives one permission or exemption to trigger or exacerbate symptoms of mental illness. There is a difference between criticizing, say, homophobic or anti-Semitic language, and “pushing the buttons” of someone already under mental duress from an unfortunately-worded response (often worded with no malicious intent). Delighting in, dismissing, or purposefully manipulating the effects of a mental health condition is even worse, and completely, completely inexcusable. The sentence “just because XYZ is now feeling suicidal ‘as a result of our language’ does not mean we should stop because XYZ said ABC” is a sentence that (including the quotation marks) enables, puts on high, and gives strength to another persons suffering and, more broadly, a societal dismissal of mental illness as a topic of conversation. Whatever race, gender identity, sexuality, religion or ethnoreligious group, class, age, or — yes — mental health status you are, it is morally wrong.

As it happens, such behavior is also ableist — it prioritizes the desire and value of able-bodied people over others. Dismissal of mental health concerns — or claims that these concerns are exaggerated or “made up” — does not glorify you or do wonders for your own cause. Rather, it simply recreates a dynamic in which people with mental illness are prevented from space to recover, or address their needs.

In addition, if you use another person’s mental illness symptoms as a badge of honor — whatever their other racial, class, gender, sexuality, race, or religious statuses — you are a mean person. Not a valiant warrior. Just a mean person.

Secondly, I think it is worth pointing out that dismissing these concerns is morally similar to — though not the same as — passing off a racist or sexist statement as “coming from good intentions.” Generally, it is clear that a call-out, criticism, or response is almost always not maliciously intended — it is a reaction on the part of someone else to correct an offensive or problematic behavior, and more often than not preserve their own self-worth. However, when such a call-out causes or exacerbates a mental illness-related response, it is not only wise to change one’s response method, but to not continue harmful behavior. (Sometimes, this will mean the hard work of determining what specific behavior caused it, since it is not the prerogative of someone under mental illness duress to give explanations for your benefit — only for theirs if they so choose.) Furthermore, one should at least acknowledge the possibility of partial responsibility in triggering such a response. To dismiss such a concern under a banner of “the greater cause” is using a feel-good tactic to absolve oneself.

Thirdly, dismissing mental health effects has horrific class-, race-, gender-, sexuality-, and ethnic-related effects. In terms of class, access to mental health resources in most of the industrialized world is highly skewed towards those with the income to be able to pay for treatment for mental illnesses. In the United States and South Africa — the two countries with which I am most familiar — and others, people of color are disproportionately unable to access mental health resources — and are often not able to seek treatments more readily available to white folk. Given that race and class are correlated in many countries, I should note that the two aforementioned factors are interchangeable. Trans* and non-binary people, women, and intersecting groups therein may not always have access to the same mental health resources. Folks on the rainbow spectrum (LGBTQIA) may also not have such access. Finally, members of specific ethnic groups will often come from cultures in which mental health or seeking resources for it is so taboo that being able to address one’s mental health issues comes with severe “side effects”; in addition, someone with mental illness in such communities may face isolation that increases with visible (or invisible) symptoms. A disregard for mental health is a disregard for other inequities.

I think what is often most important — and most disregarded — is that the repeated exacerbation of mental illness can easily create environments of continuous trauma for those with it — both those at the receiving end of corrective measure and those for whom its benefit is meant. Recovery cannot occur without some alleviation in trauma, but certain behaviors related to callout culture replay the trauma. For some, it means that one mistake that led to an episode can be replayed at any time — if repeatedly dredged up in public spaces — thus causing replays of the trauma. But for those of us for whom aggression is meant to benefit, it can recreate other traumas. As a gay man and as a Jew who has been a victim of anti-Semitic physical violence, I have often felt that “callouts” for homophobic or anti-Semitic behavior, rather than benefiting me, have forced me to relive various incidents that I, quite honestly, do not want to relive. Dredging things up often makes the beneficiary group feel not reified, but rather that their own mental illnesses are being exacerbated. Most importantly, it denies those with mental illnesses — on any axis of status — social inclusion and access.

I think that fairly simple steps can usually be taken to address these concerns. One could ask oneself the questions: “How is what I am doing hurting the mental health of XYZ?,” “Is there a different way I could address my concern?,” “What might XYZ be going through right now?,” and “Will they now be in a place to respond at all?” I also think it is important not to dismiss concerns of mental health or of triggered symptoms: often times human lives are at stake. In addition, one should learn about mental illness — for which there is now a wealth of resources available on the internet.

Finally, it is certainly not a place for one to be heroic or market oneself as a warrior for one’s cause. That prompts no change; only cruelty.

And if one does so, or dismisses it, then maybe one should not open their mouth at all.

The author thanks Douglas Graebner, Nicole Cherry, and Pranav Jain for their incredible comments on a draft of this piece.