So You've Been Publicly Shamed

Ronson’s work examines the meaning and methods of achieving justice and redemption in the contemporary era. In a traditional framework, justice is meted out by institutions such as the police and the court systems, but in the social media era, private citizens seek justice against one another through the mechanism of public shame. Ronson investigates the traditional court system and its ability to provide justice through interviews with judges, psychologists, lawyers, and inmates who work within it. He also is concerned with private individuals whom he characterizes as having taken on some of the power of enacting justice through targeting others for missteps on social media. He argues that this shift is fraught because a judge wouldn’t sentence someone who hadn’t been committed of a crime, whereas on social media “we were much more frighting” (86) because commentators could seek justice against a private citizen for merely making a bad joke. He does not cite the history of lynch mobs in the US, only briefly mentioning them in his discussion of deindividuation. This somewhat problematizes his claim that “traditional” justice is more systematic and fairer than mob justice on social media.

In this context, the question of who deserves redemption for their crimes, or perceived crimes, and how they achieve this redemption is complex. Ronson begins with an examination of the case of Jonah Lehrer, who was found to have self-plagiarized and fabricated quotes. In Chapter 3, he covers Lehrer’s public apology, which can be seen as one pathway for redemption. However, Lehrer’s apology is largely rejected by the social media public, which sees it as insufficient and self-serving, especially after it comes out that he was paid by the Knight Foundation to deliver it. Lehrer is also working on a new book that may prove to be his redemption, Ronson argues. Ronson then looks at how other targets of public shaming have achieved redemption. Some, like Max Mosely and Princess Donna, simply shrug off or ignore the criticism. Jonah Lehrer and Justine Sacco lay low until the storm has passed, and then they return to work. As with the concept of justice, Ronson pairs his examination of redemption in the public arena with the way one may achieve redemption through the criminal justice system for one’s crimes. He focuses on the story of Raquel, who through a special psychiatric criminal program that focuses on improving the self-esteem of inmates rather than shaming them, is able to earn some measure of redemption and a new path in life.

Ronson does not provide a positive argument for either what he believes is the best way to pursue justice in the social media era, nor does he outline who he believes is worthy of redemption and how it should be achieved. Throughout the text, however, he expresses his skepticism about the way shame works through both concepts. Ronson does not feel that shame is an effective way to achieve justice, especially when it is the only tool employed. If anything, he portrays the act of shaming and the psychological effects of being shamed as damaging to both participants. He leaves open the question of how best to seek redemption in such cases, as public apologies seem to leave many unsatisfied. In the Afterword, he addresses these questions directly in stating that readers should stick up for those undergoing public shaming, as people deserve grace or understanding for their “gray areas” (267).