"They're a Bad Influence:" A Tail of Insulting Intelligence, Nurturing Dependence, and Justifying Censorship

When I was a kid, I was called a "bad influence" more times than I can remember and I would suspect that some people may still think that about me (not surprisingly, given my stance on certain types of drug use and their potential benefits). I am proud of that status, though. It feels like an accomplishment to know that my words were and, perhaps still are, considered to be "dangerous" by someone in this world. I don't think that those people are right, of course, but it is still a nice thing to hear. This post isn't about me though. I want to take a look at the concept of the "bad influence," how can functions as a tool of the authority, and what its purpose can potentially be. I tend to think of the " bad influence" argument as somewhat insulting, not to the "bad influence" itself but to the listener or listeners. The argument frames the authority as the protector of the listeners and alternative sources of information as a threat. It can applied as a justification for censorship or other acts of oppression and it nurtures dependence upon the authority among the listeners who become believers. With that in mind, I think that it may be productive to take some time to examine the "bad influence" argument and how it can be used to keep us ignorant and to justify censorship.

Before I go on, I want to clarify something. When I talk about the "bad influence" argument and how it can function as a tool of oppression and censorship, I am strictly referring to occasions when it is used against information or people who are sharing information. There are, obviously, some legitimate "bad influences." If, for example, your friend thought it was super funny to inject you with heroin when you're not looking, it might be a good idea to not hang out with that person, lest you find yourself accidentally addicted to heroin. However, I see a distinction between that type of extreme scenario and labeling things or people as "bad influences" (or some variation of the term) because they are sharing inconvenient information. In those cases, the use of the "bad influence" argument is an effective tactic that can be employed by the systems of authority to keep us misinformed and dependent upon them.

When I was about ten and living in military housing in Hawaii, I was told by a friend that his mother would no longer allow us to play together because I was a "bad influence" who would "turn him into a juvenile delinquent" with all the "dirty words" and "adult" concepts that I was teaching him and this hints at the insulting nature of the "bad influence" argument. The underlying principal behind the argument implies that the listener is too foolish to determine the difference between truth and lies or right and wrong. The mother's assumption was that teaching her kid how to construct a proper string of swears and insults was going to lead to him telling his aged great grandmother to eat a soggy sack of syphilitic dicks at their next family dinner. Of course, that wasn't the case. He was young but he wasn't a crazy person and he could, like most people, reserve those kinds of statements for the times when they are appropriate. Simply put, saying that he could be "turned into" anything by learning a few words is a bit of an insult to his intelligence. I don't want to appear as though I view an overly protective parent as the equivalent to the oppressive governments of the world but the "bad influence" argument has the same effect regardless of who the one making it is. That is to say, it suggests that the authority has some knowledge that the listeners lack and because the listeners are "ignorant," it can definitively label information or the people sharing it as good or bad for reasons that seem arbitrary to the listeners. That message disregards the cognitive capabilities of the listeners but when people hear it often enough, they begin to believe it that it is true. "I am not as smart as the authority so I'd better listen to what it has to say and ignore all of these 'bad influences,'" a believer thinks, as he or she approvingly stands by while the authority (be it in the media, or government, or wherever else would-be "tyrants" might seek their wealth, influence, and power) censors sources of inconvenient knowledge.

I do not think that my friend's mom had any nefarious intentions when she tried to prevent him from learning things from a disapproved source such as myself but her action did function to nurture dependence upon her in her son's mind and the same effect manifests when authorities try to hide information from us or discredit alternative sources of information with the "bad influence" argument. She wanted to be the the only tap from which knowledge about some topics flowed because she wanted to keep certain ideas hidden from her son. That is not necessarily a bad thing (though, I do think that she was more than a bit heavy-handed in her approach) but our view of this underlying motivation should change when we exchange loving parents for oppressive governments and dishonest voices in the media. "Listen to us because our opponents are a 'bad influence' on you." "Pay no attention to those true things because the people who are saying them want you to change your mind about the approved narrative." I could go on coming up with things to make my imaginary authority to say but it is probably better to point to real world examples. When evidence came to light which suggested that the DNC put its finger on the scales to tip them in favor of the more establishment-friendly presidential candidate, I heard more than a few people suggest that we should ignore the information because it was leaked by "Russian hackers" and those "bad" foreigners, "criminals," or "thieves" want to "influence" us by telling the truth about things that happened (I will provide a link at the end of this post to back that up). The systems of authority (in this case, the Democratic establishment and its allies) are using a form of the "bad influence" argument to discredit alternative sources of information and to reduce the exposure that the information receives. That has the effect of placing the authority in a position where it is the only source of "truth" in the minds of the believers. The believers begin to depend on the authority for information because they fear being "influenced" by others. In essence, this is a passive sort of censorship. People are told to fear alternative information and that prevents some of them from seeking it out. With no other options, the believers begin to rely only on the authority for all of their information.

The primary purpose of the "bad influence" argument is, ultimately, to hide information. My friend's mother did not want to answer the uncomfortable questions that came along with her son knowing the words and phrases that I had taught him to say but the systems of authority have different and much more oppressive motivations. When an authority makes the "bad influence" argument, it is usually followed by some act of censorship. My friend was not allowed to hang out anymore, for example. The system of authority may not want a message being heard and it uses the "bad influence" argument in some form or another to justify its acts of censorship. "That information conflicts with the narrative and we must keep the 'fake news' from influencing the masses." "Those leaks helped our vague and poorly defined 'enemies' so they must be hidden from view and the leakers must be prosecuted." "We will make those 'bad influences' go away so they don't sway your opinion about the wise and benevolent systems authority."

We can resist the use of the "bad influence" argument. First, we can believe in ourselves. I know that sounds like the type of thing a huckster self-help guru might say but it is actually a potential solution here. The "bad influence" argument often relies on us accepting that our capabilities to understand things are somehow less than that of an authority. If we reject that premise, the foundation upon which the argument rests begins to dissolve. We can also begin to question people who use the "bad influence" argument. If it seems like there might be other motives behind a person's insistence that we avoid a thing, we can reject what they have to say or at least hold it in suspicion. Finally, when the argument is used as a justification for censorship, we can stand against that censorship. Those things will not end the use of the "bad influence" argument by the systems of authority but they will make it less effective and that is a step in the right direction.

Peace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/07/19/does-the-mainstream-media-regret-using-all-those-emails-stolen-by-russians/

To its credit, the above article does not take the position that the DNC leaks should have been ignored but it asks a question that suggests that this position is a legitimate one and quotes someone who holds that position and says the following: "A reminder: every reporter who gleefully trafficked in stolen emails via wikileaks abetted a crime. Not illegal activity by itself but unethical and immoral." That was tweeted by a high ranking Clinton ally in July of this year. There are likely better examples floating around but the sentiment that is expressed in that quote should serve well enough, I think.

All the images in this post are sourced from the free image website, unsplash.com.