From Public Executions to Being Cancelled Online: A History of Social Judgement
Brought to you by Represent
Image: Wikimedia Commonsw1
If you’ve ever made a weird joke in front of your friends, you’ll know what it feels like to be judged by your peers. Their judgemental gazes might make you feel a little embarrassed today – but did you know that throughout most of history, being on the wrong side of crowd opinion often meant facing punishment or even death?
Here is a quick summary of some of the ways social judgement has, throughout history, determined the fates of individuals.
Here is a quick summary of some of the ways social judgement has, throughout history, determined the fates of individuals.
One of the first ways our peers could show their dislike for us was through ostracisation – or ostrakismos, as the ancient Greeks called it.
At assemblies, Athenian citizens could nominate individuals they saw as troublemakers for ostracisation. If enough people voted for the same individual, he was ordered to leave the city for for at least 10 years. Aristides the Just, depicted here, was ostracised for opposing a plan to use new silver resources to build an army fleet.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsAt assemblies, Athenian citizens could nominate individuals they saw as troublemakers for ostracisation. If enough people voted for the same individual, he was ordered to leave the city for for at least 10 years. Aristides the Just, depicted here, was ostracised for opposing a plan to use new silver resources to build an army fleet.
The power of crowds also decided an individual’s fate in the case of ancient Roman gladiator battles.
When a gladiator was finally knocked to the ground, his opponent would look to the crowd to decide whether he should be given the chance to live. By turning their thumbs down, the audience could sentence the victim to a grisly death. This practice was known as pollice verso, or “turned thumb”.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsWhen a gladiator was finally knocked to the ground, his opponent would look to the crowd to decide whether he should be given the chance to live. By turning their thumbs down, the audience could sentence the victim to a grisly death. This practice was known as pollice verso, or “turned thumb”.
As religion spread throughout the world, communities began to judge individuals based on their religious purity. One way to evoke distrust in such communities was to look or act in ways that linked you to the supernatural. Or you could be so disliked that your neighbours accused you of witchcraft.
In medieval times, witch-hunts were thus common. Many women were put on “trial” for being witches, and were then either drowned or burned at the stake.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsIn medieval times, witch-hunts were thus common. Many women were put on “trial” for being witches, and were then either drowned or burned at the stake.
Churches themselves had a unique way of punishing individuals they judged unworthy: excommunication. An excommunicated individual was cut off from their religious community and sometimes even had their spirit condemned. This was a crushing sentence during medieval times, when so much of life was governed by religion.
Even emperors could face this punishment. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, pictured here, is said to have been “hated, cursed, and vilified” during his sentence. He was excommunicated for failing to go on crusade after he had promised to do so.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsEven emperors could face this punishment. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, pictured here, is said to have been “hated, cursed, and vilified” during his sentence. He was excommunicated for failing to go on crusade after he had promised to do so.
Peer judgement was so entrenched that it was even written into criminal law.
In 13th-century England, those who had committed crimes faced a “grand jury”, a group of 12 peers who knew either the defendant or the victim. Defendants who were found to be guilty by this jury could be sent to the gallows and executed.
Image: Library of CongressIn 13th-century England, those who had committed crimes faced a “grand jury”, a group of 12 peers who knew either the defendant or the victim. Defendants who were found to be guilty by this jury could be sent to the gallows and executed.
On the seven seas, pirates had their own kind of law – which also included democratic sentencing of those they judged to be wrong.
Every pirate was allowed to vote on their crewmate’s punishment, even if the individual who had committed the crime was their captain.
Punishments included flogging, keelhauling and marooning, but not the oft-depicted “walking the plank”, which was a myth.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsEvery pirate was allowed to vote on their crewmate’s punishment, even if the individual who had committed the crime was their captain.
Punishments included flogging, keelhauling and marooning, but not the oft-depicted “walking the plank”, which was a myth.
Sometimes, an individual’s punishment was not brought about by peer judgement. Rather, the peer judgement was the punishment.
Being put in the stocks or pillories was one such example. Victims were placed in public at the mercy of a crowd, which often threw things at them.
The intensity of this punishment depended on an individual’s popularity. Writer Daniel Defoe, who was put in the pillories for writing a pamphlet that mocked the Church, had flowers thrown at him while his friends sold his books to spectators. Others who were less liked were pelted with dead animals!
Image: Wikimedia CommonsBeing put in the stocks or pillories was one such example. Victims were placed in public at the mercy of a crowd, which often threw things at them.
The intensity of this punishment depended on an individual’s popularity. Writer Daniel Defoe, who was put in the pillories for writing a pamphlet that mocked the Church, had flowers thrown at him while his friends sold his books to spectators. Others who were less liked were pelted with dead animals!
Public executions were another punishment that drew crowds. Such executions across Europe and the US were often considered mass entertainment. Thousands would turn up to heckle the victim, and many would even try to dip their handkerchiefs in the blood that was spilled as a souvenir of the show.
Public executions only stopped in the 19th century.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsPublic executions only stopped in the 19th century.
Perhaps the worst way an individual’s peers could condemn them, however, took place in World War II.
Under Hitler’s reign, many Jews went into hiding to avoid being sent to deadly concentration camps. Unfortunately, many of these individuals had Nazi neighbours. They informed Nazi soldiers about these individuals’ hiding places, sealing their fates.
Equally bad as the informers were the many bystanders – those who pretended not to see the genocide of Jews, and thus allowed the Nazi government to commit their crimes.
Image: Wikimedia CommonsUnder Hitler’s reign, many Jews went into hiding to avoid being sent to deadly concentration camps. Unfortunately, many of these individuals had Nazi neighbours. They informed Nazi soldiers about these individuals’ hiding places, sealing their fates.
Equally bad as the informers were the many bystanders – those who pretended not to see the genocide of Jews, and thus allowed the Nazi government to commit their crimes.
After the immense cruelty of the World Wars, mindsets shifted to promote peace, harmony and equality among the people of the world. Our modern societies and governing systems thus began to phase out these cruel and unusual punishments.
However, that does not mean that we are free from the consequences of societal judgement today.
However, that does not mean that we are free from the consequences of societal judgement today.
The arrival of the Internet changed things forever. Social judgement could now take place in a new medium, one that subjected people not just to the scrutiny of their friends and neighbours, but to the judgement of thousands of people all across the world.
New tools emerged to let us know what other netizens think of us and our opinions: like and dislike buttons, upvote and downvote options, and repost and retweet functions all serve this purpose today.
Image: YouTubeNew tools emerged to let us know what other netizens think of us and our opinions: like and dislike buttons, upvote and downvote options, and repost and retweet functions all serve this purpose today.
Online judgement today determines how much visibility and attention we deserve – an important function in a world where views can earn us fame and money.
In this Doja Cat incident, for instance, fans showed their collective displeasure with the star’s behaviour by unfollowing her, signalling that they found her unworthy of their time.
Image: Pedestrian TVIn this Doja Cat incident, for instance, fans showed their collective displeasure with the star’s behaviour by unfollowing her, signalling that they found her unworthy of their time.
But although online judgement can seem harmless – resulting in the loss of popularity rather than the loss of lives, unlike so many socially inflicted punishments in the past – this is not always the case. Doxxing, cancelling and dogpiling on individuals online can still cause irreversible harm.
Japanese professional wrestler Hana Kimura, for instance, committed suicide after receiving wave after wave of online hate from netizens who disliked her actions on the scripted show Terrace House. She was only 22 years old.
Image: YouTubeJapanese professional wrestler Hana Kimura, for instance, committed suicide after receiving wave after wave of online hate from netizens who disliked her actions on the scripted show Terrace House. She was only 22 years old.
Evidently, social judgement continues to be one of the major forces that shape, change and impact our society.
While we have come a long way from the days of witch hunts and pillories, the perceptions of our peers will always affect us… for better or for worse.
Image: PexelsWhile we have come a long way from the days of witch hunts and pillories, the perceptions of our peers will always affect us… for better or for worse.
What form will social judgement take next, and will we soon find a way to reduce its harmful impacts?