Vine ripened truss tomatoes – which splat nicely when thrown against a wall – are about $8 a kilo at the moment. So if you're thinking of having a crack at faux miracle cancer curer Belle Gibson as she hangs in the virtual stocks of public shame, it's cheaper and more effective to go online.
After all, a rotten tomato can be washed off, while your tweeted and Facebooked disgust and dismay that Gibson lied about having multiple cancers – and built a successful business and social media profile based on her fake suffering – will live on forever. So, too, the comments posted on news websites, many of them calling for Gibson to be thrown in the big house (where presumably she could work in the kitchen). "She has shown no remorse or understanding of the consequences of her crimes on cancer sufferers. She needs jail time," from@Ann posted on a Daily Telegraph story headlined "Never want to hear the name Belle Gibson again? Me neither." "The only time I want to hear her name again is, when she is charged with fraud," writes Gary.
"Compassion for this scumbag, I think not … She deserves pain and suffering as that is what she has shown! Incarcerate her!" writes Law Loop Holes at news.com.au, commenting on a story headlined, "Belle Gibson: No, none of it is true." That Gibson fraudulently portrayed herself as a battling young mother who had healed herself of brain cancer with good eating, and had marketed herself as a life-saver to genuine, vulnerable cancer sufferers – via the huge-selling Whole Pantry app and cookbook – was galling enough. That she failed to pass on moneys promised to charities – the revelations of which instigated her downfall – caused widespread disgust.
But what has riled many people in the past few days is the way Gibson continued to portray herself a victim, even as she made her confession to The Women's Weekly -- "My life-long struggle with the truth" – in which she blamed her lies on having to do too many chores as a child, and having not having any toys. Oh, and she asked people to treat her with respect and humility.
Hence: "Scumbag… incarcerate her!" That doesn't seem likely to happen. So the question is: can the community find justice, or at least some emotional release, in this public shaming? Does public shaming serve any good purpose, or is it a hateful mob response to loathsome behaviour?
Moral philosopher Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, says public shaming can be a useful mechanism for improving moral standards. "The law is a heavy and often blunt instrument, and we want methods of expressing opposition to conduct that does not, and should not, attract the sanction of the law. I use it myself." Singer gives the example that "in a world in which there are millions of people who are blind because they cannot afford the simple, inexpensive operation required to remove a cataract, I think people should be shamed for spending tens of millions on a large private yacht which also emits more greenhouse gases in an hour than a car will emit while travelling 100,000 kilometres."
Dr John Thrasher, of Monash University's Department of Philosophy, says there is a lot of evidence that shame "and its cousin guilt" are very important to human sociality and co-operation, and has been so going back to our Pleistocene ancestors. "We use shame as a social device … to publicly condemn those who break the rules and to reaffirm those rules in public … Insofar as it contributes to social peace and co-operation it can be beneficial, but it also very easily can get out of hand, especially in our modern, networked society … and it is easy for shaming itself to be used as a tool of exploitation and oppression."
He says mass shaming can stifle social change. "While we don't want people flouting the norms of honesty or fair dealing with impunity, we also want to guard against the stifling conformity that can come from being too willing to use public social shaming to rein in all deviations from what is currently deemed acceptable. Getting that mix right is no easy task, which is why we need constant public debate on these issues."
Dr Karen Jones is a philosopher from the University of Melbourne's School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. Her interests include moral psychology and ethics. She says philosophers are split on the subject of shaming. "Some think that shaming is counter-productive because … it makes one shrink before public view," weaken personal agency of the accused, and gives rise to demoralisation.
"This group of philosophers think that guilt is a better emotion to engineer, since it targets the act rather than the very being of the agent. A guilty agent can make amends," she says in an email.
Jones thinks the truth lies somewhere in between: "Our susceptibility to both shame and guilt is part of what keeps our moral compass alert. Both have dangers but shame does not have to result in withdrawal and demoralisation and guilt can be misplaced and corrosive, too." Jones say there is "something positive about being on the receiving end. It shows that others think you can do better."
However, she cautions: "I think that some of what goes on in these kind of campaigns is a form of moral grandstanding…. (where) you are concerned to show off your own moral sensitivity to others rather than to address the moral problem itself. Since your sense of your moral superiority is relative to others, if that's what you are trying to do, you can readily be led to a kind of moral one upmanship: 'You think this is wrong, well I think it is even worse. Aren't I ever so much more morally sensitive to find even more fault here than you do?' I think that's a dynamic behind the kind of wolf pack behaviour that can happen on Twitter."
Dr Dan Woodman, senior lecturer in Sociology at the University of Melbourne says that, in an age of moral uncertainty and shifting ground, shaming celebrities is a way for people to debate what it means to live a good life. "Is it a good though? Yes and no. It's a human thing and often creates scapegoats. And sometimes it gets out of hand and people's lives have been destroyed." Woodman points to the new book by Welsh writer Jon Ronson, So You've Been Publicly Shamed, which details instances when a stupid or tasteless joke on Twitter has spawned a devastating backlash, causing people to lose their jobs and their minds.
Dr Nicholas Hookway, a sociologist with the University of Tasmania says that shaming has taken on a "renewed significance in criminological theory and practice". This is part of a move towards the criminal justice system being restructured to reflect restorative rather than punitive principles.
"The idea is called 'reintegrative shaming', where we shame the deed not the person," Hookway says. "In this way, the offender is shamed for their actions but is not 'cast out' as a person. The offender is publicly shamed for the harm caused but offered pardon and reintegrated back into the community."
However, in such a high-profile case as Belle Gibson, what opportunities will she have for reintegration and forgiveness? "Likely, very few. This is perhaps the key problem with these more nasty forms of shaming we see, online or otherwise – it is quick to judge, but offers little opportunity for redemption."
Lyn Bender is a clinical psychologist and social commentator. She doesn't consider public shaming healthy. "Maybe you want people denouncing terrible actions" but in making personal attacks a group bullying dynamic takers over. "It's much easier to pile on someone who is a depersonalised figure. Belle Gibson is a myth. No one knows her. She's just somebody on the internet now who did the wrong thing. But it's unhealthy if one person has to carry so much rage."
And Gibson, say Ms Bender, has triggered rage about more universal fears and disappointments. "It's our own powerless rage. We're angry about cancer, and about rip-offs. There isn't a magic bullet and many people want one. She gave false hope."
Is there an argument that all these upset people might find justice in the shaming process? "It's not justice when its relentless and never-ending. If you go to prison, you do your time… but with shaming on the internet, it's forever going to hound you." Besides, forgiveness and restoration to the citizenry may not be what Gibson is seeking.
"I'd say she has a personality disorder… where she compulsively seeks attention," Bender says. "And people with a personality disorder notoriously don't shift their behaviour after a bad experience."
