What is umbrage?
June 9, 2008 11:39 AM Subscribe
What is it to take umbrage or offense? Is it a biological response?
There's no shortage of examples of offense taken, even within the relatively placid domain of the blue. Indeed, from where I'm standing, it looks to me as if half of the world's problems are caused by one party in an exchange taking offense at something the other says or does. So I find it strange that I can not find anything, anything at all, which seeks to understand this from a rational, empirical point of view. What is offense? How do we recognize it? Can it be characterized independently of the content of the discussion or transaction? Can one develop an animal model? Could offense be a biological (or psycho-biological, if you're that way inclined) reaction that can be recognized and treated? No anthropomorphizing about your cat, please. Anybody know of attempts to actually understand offense?
There's no shortage of examples of offense taken, even within the relatively placid domain of the blue. Indeed, from where I'm standing, it looks to me as if half of the world's problems are caused by one party in an exchange taking offense at something the other says or does. So I find it strange that I can not find anything, anything at all, which seeks to understand this from a rational, empirical point of view. What is offense? How do we recognize it? Can it be characterized independently of the content of the discussion or transaction? Can one develop an animal model? Could offense be a biological (or psycho-biological, if you're that way inclined) reaction that can be recognized and treated? No anthropomorphizing about your cat, please. Anybody know of attempts to actually understand offense?
It's not a biological response. You can choose to either be offended or not.
posted by amro at 11:55 AM on June 9, 2008
posted by amro at 11:55 AM on June 9, 2008
Whether or not you are offended depends on your values, which may change, but the template is biological.
Of course, I choose to believe that.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:59 AM on June 9, 2008
Of course, I choose to believe that.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:59 AM on June 9, 2008
Well, a little Googling turned up some studies on forgiveness, but I haven't been able to find those that focus on "offense" or "umbrage" - maybe there's a better keyword. Offense is part of forgiveness, which is why I found the forgiveness studies I suppose.
My search, after a couple of refinements, was [current psychological research umbrage OR offense -sexual -prison -sentence -stress-as-offense-to-self -criminal]
Not a research psychologist; these would be the best people to ask. I hope someone knowledgeable answers this question, because I'm (obviously) interested.
posted by amtho at 12:10 PM on June 9, 2008
My search, after a couple of refinements, was [current psychological research umbrage OR offense -sexual -prison -sentence -stress-as-offense-to-self -criminal]
Not a research psychologist; these would be the best people to ask. I hope someone knowledgeable answers this question, because I'm (obviously) interested.
posted by amtho at 12:10 PM on June 9, 2008
James Gilligan's book, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic provides one, oblique answer your question. Gilligan argues that much of the violence that people - especially men - commit is the result of perceived disrespect. People with extremely low self-esteem and internalized feelings of shame have a much lower threshold for taking offense, and often respond with disproportionate anger or violence to seemingly trivial insults.
In this view, umbrage is a form of the innate reaction that people have to perceived threats of all sorts - physical, emotional, psychological, and so forth. But the depth of perceived threat and the resulting response is disproportionately large.
posted by googly at 12:40 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
In this view, umbrage is a form of the innate reaction that people have to perceived threats of all sorts - physical, emotional, psychological, and so forth. But the depth of perceived threat and the resulting response is disproportionately large.
posted by googly at 12:40 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
This paper, on the "Offense Principle" might give a good start. ("Dirty Words" and the Offense Principle, David W. Shoemaker, Law and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 5 (Sep., 2000), pp. 545-584 )I glanced at it, and it is definitely related to your line of inquiry.
In general I would look to analytic philosophy for an investigation and conceptual analysis of offense.
posted by oddman at 1:12 PM on June 9, 2008
In general I would look to analytic philosophy for an investigation and conceptual analysis of offense.
posted by oddman at 1:12 PM on June 9, 2008
It's not a biological response. You can choose to either be offended or not.
This strikes me as a very odd statement. Being offended is a feeling. Personally, I have little control over my feelings. Feelings are things that happen to me, not things I choose. I CAN (to some extent) control how I act when I get certain feelings.
Similarly, I would say violence is a choice (usually); anger isn't.
Over times, ones attitudes can (for some people) change feelings. So if you cultivate certain practices, you may find yourself feeling less offended. But that's not the same as making a simple choice not to be offended.
Answering the original question: I don't think there's any way to know for sure why people are get offended. Assuming there's a genetic component to it (which I think is a pretty good assumption), we can play armchair Evolutionary Psychologist. From my armchair, it seems to be related to status.
All sorts of animals care about status (alpha dogs, silverback gorillas, etc.). That makes sense, since high-status animals get more chances to mate than low-status ones.
When you offend me, you lower my rank (or I perceive you as lowering my rank).
posted by grumblebee at 1:20 PM on June 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
This strikes me as a very odd statement. Being offended is a feeling. Personally, I have little control over my feelings. Feelings are things that happen to me, not things I choose. I CAN (to some extent) control how I act when I get certain feelings.
Similarly, I would say violence is a choice (usually); anger isn't.
Over times, ones attitudes can (for some people) change feelings. So if you cultivate certain practices, you may find yourself feeling less offended. But that's not the same as making a simple choice not to be offended.
Answering the original question: I don't think there's any way to know for sure why people are get offended. Assuming there's a genetic component to it (which I think is a pretty good assumption), we can play armchair Evolutionary Psychologist. From my armchair, it seems to be related to status.
All sorts of animals care about status (alpha dogs, silverback gorillas, etc.). That makes sense, since high-status animals get more chances to mate than low-status ones.
When you offend me, you lower my rank (or I perceive you as lowering my rank).
posted by grumblebee at 1:20 PM on June 9, 2008 [2 favorites]
I see it as a direct conflict of expectation versus reality.
I expect things to be a certain way, my expectations aren't met and I have an emotional response.
For example:
Mild:
If every Sunday after church my dad gets us donuts and one Sunday he doesn't, I respond with disappointment (that the assumed expectation was not met).
Medium:
If I grew up with modeling that racist terms are not used, and my best friend spouts racial epithets, I respond with shock (that the assumed expectation that people with a great deal of commonalities have similar/the same values was not met).
It's easy to write these. In the case of social offense, I posit that they are violations of the "social contract", so things like line cutting, spitting, cursing, theft, rudeness, etc. all fit into assumed behaviors.
I think too that the level of offense/umbrage is worse when the expectation has also been communicated as opposed to assumed.
posted by plinth at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2008
I expect things to be a certain way, my expectations aren't met and I have an emotional response.
For example:
Mild:
If every Sunday after church my dad gets us donuts and one Sunday he doesn't, I respond with disappointment (that the assumed expectation was not met).
Medium:
If I grew up with modeling that racist terms are not used, and my best friend spouts racial epithets, I respond with shock (that the assumed expectation that people with a great deal of commonalities have similar/the same values was not met).
It's easy to write these. In the case of social offense, I posit that they are violations of the "social contract", so things like line cutting, spitting, cursing, theft, rudeness, etc. all fit into assumed behaviors.
I think too that the level of offense/umbrage is worse when the expectation has also been communicated as opposed to assumed.
posted by plinth at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2008
The NYT article The Moral Instinct talks about five spheres of morality, their basis in biology, and why different cultures find different things offensive.
posted by martinrebas at 1:26 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by martinrebas at 1:26 PM on June 9, 2008
Jonathon Haidt (mentioned in the above NYT article) is a good person to read if you're interested in the biology of morals.
posted by herbaliser at 1:41 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by herbaliser at 1:41 PM on June 9, 2008
Fence sitters are the worst, and will be killed by both sides.
It seems to have worked out all right for the Swiss.
posted by scody at 1:43 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
It seems to have worked out all right for the Swiss.
posted by scody at 1:43 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: This is coming along nicely. There are well-known evolutionary theories of moral capacity that I'm aware of. There's plenty of modeling of 'fairness', e.g. within game theory. It really seems odd to me that there is a vacuum for studying offense per se. I'll track down the "dirty words" article tomorrow (no library access from home). Keep 'em coming. What might the hall marks of offense be? How might you recognize its equivalent in an ape? Might offense have something to do with our dynamic social hierarchy? I can't really imaging an ant taking offense, but apes and monkeys, no problem.
posted by fcummins at 1:54 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by fcummins at 1:54 PM on June 9, 2008
How do you define biological response? One could say that anything a person does is a biological response.
posted by winston at 2:20 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by winston at 2:20 PM on June 9, 2008
Response by poster: Good question winston. I guess I want to find a way to look at umbrage without being distracted by the content of any specific instance. Fear is a response to the perception of a threat, and a threat is something that threatens ones integrity as an organism. I'd be interested to see how a primatologist (de Waal?) would describe offense. Then see if that kind of approach can suggest ways of dealing with cartoons of the prophet or common-or-garden marital discord. I distrust our stock of psychological predicates. Social cognitive neuroscience is the direction I'm looking, I guess.
posted by fcummins at 2:26 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by fcummins at 2:26 PM on June 9, 2008
Best answer: Offhand: you might enjoy looking at what Plato and Aristotle had to say about roughly this.
Plato says there are three parts of the soul: animal appetites (eg for food and sex), "spirit" (guts or valor), and reason (which should act as a benevolent ruler over the other two parts, channeling their good features and mitigating their bad features). "Spirit" is what makes the good man take offense when he is wronged - so it's necessary - but if it's not controlled it can make him act rashly. The Republic, Phaedrus (more complicated) and the Laches (all about courage) are the dialogues to look at here; if you want to pursue this avenue I can point you to the relevant part of the Republic.
Aristotle also talks about indignation as being an important motivator, for example he talks about this in the Rhetoric. He defines it as being "pain at the undeserved good fortune of others" (contrasted with pity, which is pain at the undeserved bad fortune of others). He says it's part of having good character to feel these emotions at the appropriate times.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:17 PM on June 9, 2008
Plato says there are three parts of the soul: animal appetites (eg for food and sex), "spirit" (guts or valor), and reason (which should act as a benevolent ruler over the other two parts, channeling their good features and mitigating their bad features). "Spirit" is what makes the good man take offense when he is wronged - so it's necessary - but if it's not controlled it can make him act rashly. The Republic, Phaedrus (more complicated) and the Laches (all about courage) are the dialogues to look at here; if you want to pursue this avenue I can point you to the relevant part of the Republic.
Aristotle also talks about indignation as being an important motivator, for example he talks about this in the Rhetoric. He defines it as being "pain at the undeserved good fortune of others" (contrasted with pity, which is pain at the undeserved bad fortune of others). He says it's part of having good character to feel these emotions at the appropriate times.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:17 PM on June 9, 2008
This book discusses certain types of "taking offense," particularly of the "you gave him more than you gave me, that's not fair!" variety.
posted by salvia at 6:42 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by salvia at 6:42 PM on June 9, 2008
It seems to have worked out all right for the Swiss.
That's because the Swiss live in Switzerland. It takes a lot of umbrage to motivate someone to climb that.
I doubt "offense" or "umbrage" as such can be meaningfully distinguished on a biological level from anger. They are philosophical terms referring to a cause for anger.
This, freedom to express anger as conferring social higher status (and conversely, expressing sadness as conferring lower social status), is interesting especially in light of theories of depression as an adaptive response to falls in social status.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:25 PM on June 9, 2008
That's because the Swiss live in Switzerland. It takes a lot of umbrage to motivate someone to climb that.
I doubt "offense" or "umbrage" as such can be meaningfully distinguished on a biological level from anger. They are philosophical terms referring to a cause for anger.
This, freedom to express anger as conferring social higher status (and conversely, expressing sadness as conferring lower social status), is interesting especially in light of theories of depression as an adaptive response to falls in social status.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:25 PM on June 9, 2008
Response by poster: I had read the de Waal book, salvia, thanks. I guess it is one reason I think looking at this across species bounds is a good idea. The Greek connection is one I hadn't been aware of. Thanks, LobsterMitten (?). As one trained in all sorts of modern, new fangled, knowledge, it is still a surprise to me every time I find a heated current debate most soundly articulated in Plato or Aristotle, and it happens frequently! The Tiedens study looks fascinating, aeschenkarnos. More....?
posted by fcummins at 11:45 PM on June 9, 2008
posted by fcummins at 11:45 PM on June 9, 2008
Sure, here's a list of studies citing Tiedens' study. Most of these journals should be available through your local university's library.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:29 PM on June 10, 2008
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:29 PM on June 10, 2008
To me, umbrage/offense is some kind of a physical reaction (at least in a brain versus mind sense), in that often times a reaction will happen before reason even has a chance to step in.
But as others mentioned, it probably lies on an anger...annoyance...pleasure spectrum.
Or more specifically, it is a social "event" that can cause of one of those reactions. You can only be offended by some act of a thinking being. Only a nut would be offended by a cat or a chair. So on some level, to be offended, we must believe that the offender "meant it" through intent or carelessness. Riffing further, to be offended means that we are having a reaction to someone else's different ethics/morality/code of behavior.
Or, what weapons grade pandemonium said. We've just learned who our enemy will be when the robot holocaust comes.
posted by gjc at 5:04 PM on June 10, 2008
But as others mentioned, it probably lies on an anger...annoyance...pleasure spectrum.
Or more specifically, it is a social "event" that can cause of one of those reactions. You can only be offended by some act of a thinking being. Only a nut would be offended by a cat or a chair. So on some level, to be offended, we must believe that the offender "meant it" through intent or carelessness. Riffing further, to be offended means that we are having a reaction to someone else's different ethics/morality/code of behavior.
Or, what weapons grade pandemonium said. We've just learned who our enemy will be when the robot holocaust comes.
posted by gjc at 5:04 PM on June 10, 2008
You can only be offended by some act of a thinking being. Only a nut would be offended by a cat or a chair.
I disagree. People are often offended by cats, who are more than thinking enough to count in this context, and also by the actions of other ordinary people with regard to cats ("why can't you keep your cat in your yard") and chairs ("who moved my chair?!").
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:04 PM on June 10, 2008
I disagree. People are often offended by cats, who are more than thinking enough to count in this context, and also by the actions of other ordinary people with regard to cats ("why can't you keep your cat in your yard") and chairs ("who moved my chair?!").
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:04 PM on June 10, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:50 AM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]