Edward Torsney

“In heaven’s name why are you walking away? Hang on to your love.” – Sade, 1984.

In an era where digital connectivity transcends geographical boundaries, social media platforms have become conduits for real-time broadcasting of global events. 

Currently the world is witnessing a genocide in Gaza. All the definitions of genocide were found to have been met back in March 2024 by The United Nations Human Rights Council, The International Court of Justice, The International Criminal Court, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and every other human rights organisation on Earth. Since then the Israeli Genocide Machine has ramped up enormously towards what can only be described now as a “Final Solution” scenario. The definitive, detailed, evidenced analysis which formalises the classification of this situation as ‘genocide’ can be found here: “Anatomy of a Genocide – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” – Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/046/11/pdf/g2404611.pdf 

Of course there have been Genocides before, the stench of their evil reverberates for centuries, but this genocide is special. Special for humanity. Special because everyone can see it. Through social media, the whole of humanity bears witness to the daily horror of fully automated, systematic extermination. Yesterday it was an obliterated school full of children, this morning it was an apartment block with 50 starving civilians vaporised from existence. For the first time in history, we can’t look away. No amount of mainstream distraction, no ‘Dancing on Ice’, or ‘Married at First Sight’, no faux political talk-show-come-lunchtime-chat-shit-show can divert our gaze, can stop us saying:

 “That was a child I saw… a broken child, lifeless in the rubble. I heard her murderers laughing and mocking. They were wearing her mother’s clothes. One had a wedding dress stretched tight over his body armour. Laughing. He had perfect white teeth. He posted the pictures on Instagram and boasted. All his friends laughed too. That’s really what I just saw! That. is. what. I. saw!”.

I can’t describe the feeling, but if you’re reading this I’m guessing you know. You’ve been there, you’ve seen it and felt it too. There’s disbelief, horror, shock, deep sadness, anger & everything else in between. But all of these feelings soon give way to the overwhelming, crushing weight of helplessness when it dawns on us that our own government, OUR country is involved, neck-deep in this bloodbath. Our own Prime Minister has declared unquestioning support for the political ideology driving the genocide, and vowed that his government will ALWAYS support the genocidal regime no matter what they do, no matter what we say. This week he even went to so far as to flat-out deny there was a genocide happening at all! We are ordinary people living in a country which is actively engaged in the most heinous atrocities and our instinctive moral responses are at best ignored by our leaders and in many cases these reactions are being criminalised. 

So on the one hand we feel it’s our responsibility as compassionate citizens to open our social media apps and witness the horror of genocide until our moral compass compels us to speak out and to act. (In doing so we risk being slandered and smeared, visited by the police, arrested and in some cases imprisoned. This is where having morals is leading in the current climate. Good is being outlawed). 

On the other hand our government makes us complicit and uses every ounce of its state power and client media to make us look away or at least to not care. This is the moral cement mixer our whole society is in. We are in supreme danger now, because when morals break down, only evil benefits. 

We can’t exist in this morally dissonant state, day in day out and escape being changed as people, as a society. But how are we changed? And moreover, is this process intentional? Is moral erosion and desensitisation an essential part of a “successful” genocide? If so, how do we fight it? 

From the government’s perspective, as long as there is a public moral imperative to oppose genocide, there will be strong public protests. The government has imposed consequences on speaking out and protesting, but they are scared to go too far for fear of being exposed as fascists. So what if they could remove the moral imperative? If they could find a way to erode the moral fabric of society, to lower the bar, then we would feel no moral imperative and the protests would end. Perhaps. So in this sense, the public being exposed to atrocities works in the Génocidaires’ favour through desensitisation to atrocities and the normalisation of genocide. 

So what do we do? Do we look away? In my opinion, no. But we must be disciplined and actively work on our moral values to stem the erosion and desensitisation. To do this we must understand the psychological and societal mechanisms at play. 

Below, I have collated the findings of some studies by eminent psychologists, sociologists and philosophers regarding exposure to unthinkable violence. All of these studies were conducted before the current genocide began and they are a good starting point to understanding the mechanisms at play in changing people and society. Bear in mind that they do not take into account the added impacts of government suppression of our moral reflexes or government complicity in the atrocities. Perhaps this should be the subject of further study. There are detailed references below and I would advise drilling down into these studies. The more you know, the better equipped you are to cope and try to help change the situation. 

I have no doubt that the Génocidaires and indeed our own government agencies are well aware of these mechanisms on our personal and societal morality, and that they are exploiting these processes against us in order to help the genocide continue unhindered. If they break us down and make us look away, we will have lost our humanity.  We can’t let that happen. 

We have to bear witness but not become desensitised. We have to be acutely aware of our moral compass, our compassion and our sense of right and wrong. 

My way of dealing with all this is firstly to inform myself of the mechanisms at work. (read the findings below). Secondly I’m morally driven to bear witness, so I do not look away and I do speak out when I can. Finally, I consciously work on resetting my own moral compass every day. I remind myself of the difference between good and evil, the difference between innocence and depravity. I cry sometimes and allow myself to feel the pain of loss, and I fight sometimes and allow myself to feel the strength of morality against this pervasive evil. Above all: I NEVER allow myself to lose hope. 

In short, be aware and hang on to your love!

Psychological Impacts of Witnessing Genocide Online:

Trauma and Helplessness. 

Exposure to graphic depictions of violence can lead to vicarious trauma, wherein individuals experience symptoms akin to those of direct trauma exposure (Figley, 1995). The feeling of helplessness, exacerbated by the inability to intervene, can result in a pervasive sense of despair and anxiety, contributing to mental health issues such as depression and PTSD (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Moral Injury

Moral injury occurs when individuals witness or fail to prevent actions that transgress their ethical beliefs. Observing genocide without the capacity to intervene can lead to profound moral dissonance, impacting an individual’s moral framework and sense of ethical integrity (Litz et al., 2009).

Societal Effects of Real-Time Genocide Exposure

Alteration of Social Norms

The normalisation of violence through repeated exposure can lead to a shift in societal norms, where extreme violence becomes an accepted, albeit tragic, part of reality (Bandura, 1973). This normalisation can erode the collective moral compass, reducing the urgency with which society responds to such atrocities.

Polarisation and Desensitisation

Witnessing genocide can exacerbate societal polarisation, as differing interpretations of events and responses to violence can deepen existing divides (Sunstein, 2009). Moreover, repeated exposure can lead to desensitisation, whereby individuals become emotionally numb to violence, diminishing empathy and reducing the impetus for collective action (Funk et al., 2004).

Desensitisation to Atrocities Through Social Media Exposure

Mechanisms of Desensitisation

Desensitisation occurs through repeated exposure to violent content, leading to diminished emotional responsiveness (Carnagey et al., 2007). On social media, the constant barrage of information can result in cognitive overload, where individuals subconsciously filter out distressing content to maintain psychological equilibrium (Lang, 2000).

Implications for Global Morality

As individuals become desensitised, the moral outrage that typically accompanies the witnessing of atrocities diminishes (Staub, 2003). This erosion of empathy and compassion can have dire implications for global morality, weakening the resolve to prevent future genocides.

Ethical Responsibilities and Potential Interventions

Please note that these responsibilities and interventions have been mostly abandoned by social media platforms in favour of censorship of any kind of opposition to the genocide. The government’s own responsibilities have also been abandoned here in favour of criminalising opposition to genocide. (More lowering of the morality bar). In any case, it’s useful to know what should be happening and what you could be demanding of social media platforms and governments: 

Role of Social Media Platforms

Social media companies bear a significant ethical responsibility to manage the dissemination of violent content. Implementing robust content moderation policies and providing psychological support resources can mitigate the negative impacts of exposure (Gillespie, 2018).

Educational and Awareness Campaigns

Promoting education and awareness about the psychological impacts of witnessing violence can empower individuals to process content more critically (Livingstone, 2008). Encouraging active engagement with humanitarian efforts can also provide a constructive outlet for those feeling powerless (Chouliaraki, 2013).

The exposure to real-time genocides on social media poses significant challenges to global morality, with profound psychological and societal impacts. While the desensitisation to atrocities is a concerning outcome, proactive measures by social media platforms and educational institutions can help mitigate these effects. Ultimately, fostering a global culture of empathy and action is imperative to preserving moral integrity in the digital age.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.

• Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 489-496.

• Chouliaraki, L. (2013). The ironic spectator: Solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism. Polity.

• Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. Brunner/Mazel.

• Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 23-39.

• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

• Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70.

• Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C., & Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), 695-706.

• Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411.

• Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others. Cambridge University Press.

• Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press.