When Cruelty Becomes a Performance: Small Acts of Humanity Still Matter
Public life increasingly rewards outrage over empathy, but research suggests that ordinary acts of restraint and kindness can still reshape our social norms.
There was a time when cruelty was something people tried to hide.
Today, it is often something to be celebrated.
Not simply cruelty itself, but performative cruelty—the public display of contempt, humiliation, or indifference intended to entertain allies, provoke opponents, or signal belonging to a group. It has become part of our political culture, our social media habits, our workplaces, and even our everyday interactions with strangers.
Most people would never describe themselves as cruel. Yet many of us have become accustomed to watching cruelty, sharing it, rewarding it with likes and laughs, or quietly accepting it as the cost of participating in modern public life.
Social scientists have spent decades studying how ordinary people adapt to changing social norms. Their work suggests something both troubling and hopeful: cruelty is contagious—but so is kindness.
Cruelty as a social performance
The sociologist Erving Goffman argued that much of everyday life is a performance in which people manage impressions before an audience (Goffman, 1959). Social media has amplified that audience beyond anything Goffman could have imagined.
Today’s public performances are rewarded by algorithms that privilege outrage, conflict, and emotional intensity. Researchers have found that morally emotional language spreads more rapidly online than neutral discussion (Brady et al., 2017). Anger generates engagement. Humiliation becomes entertainment.
This does not necessarily mean people have become more hateful than previous generations. Instead, our public incentives have changed.
Being clever often means being cutting.
Being confident often means refusing empathy.
Being “authentic” is increasingly confused with saying the harshest thing that comes to mind.
Cruelty becomes a way of demonstrating strength while compassion, empathy and civility are the casualties.
The normalization of contempt
Political scientist Liliana Mason argues that modern political identities have become deep social identities rather than merely ideological ones (Mason, 2018). When disagreement becomes part of personal identity, opponents are no longer simply wrong. They become people to ridicule in direct and simple dismissive ways rather than seek community by exploring the reasons for disagreement.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt similarly argues that humans evolved to cooperate within groups while distrusting outsiders (Haidt, 2012). Social media intensifies these instincts by rewarding some sense of loyalty over curiosity and common conversation.
Contempt becomes a badge of belonging.
We begin to judge people less by whether they are decent and more by whether they are on “our side.”
The result is a subtle erosion of character.
Character is built in ordinary moments
The ancient philosophers believed character was formed through repeated habits. Modern psychology reaches remarkably similar conclusions.
Albert Bandura’s research on social learning demonstrated that people learn behaviors by observing others (Bandura, 1977). When influential people are rewarded for ridicule, audiences learn that ridicule carries social benefits.
Conversely, witnessing generosity and cooperation also shapes behavior.
Character is not simply an internal moral compass.
It is a social practice.
Every sarcastic comment, every pile-on, every public humiliation teaches observers something about what behavior is acceptable. This is especially important because much of today’s cruelty is indirect.
It may involve sharing an embarrassing video without context.
Posting someone’s worst mistake.
Celebrating another person’s misfortune.
Turning disagreement into spectacle.
No single act appears significant.
Collectively, they reshape social expectations and drive our attention toward performative cruelty.
Why ordinary people participate
Most people do not wake up intending to make the world harsher and less kind.
Sociologist Randall Collins argues that social interactions generate emotional energy that encourages conformity within groups (Collins, 2004). Laughing at the joke everyone else finds funny—even when it is cruel—creates belonging. Building community through forgiveness and kindness is a challenge.
Psychological research on conformity dating back to Solomon Asch shows how powerful social pressure can be (Asch, 1955). Silence often feels safer than objection. Joining the crowd feels easier than standing apart.
This helps explain why cruelty can spread so quickly without requiring unusually cruel individuals. Ordinary people adapt to ordinary incentives.
The hidden costs
The consequences extend beyond hurt feelings.
Research by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt suggests that democratic societies depend not only on formal institutions but also on informal norms of mutual tolerance and restraint (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).
When contempt becomes routine, those norms weaken and trust declines. This then leads to a redefinition of compromise where it appears shameful. Added to this redefinition, humility becomes mistaken for weakness.
The political scientist Robert Putnam documented the long-term consequences of declining social trust and civic engagement decades before social media transformed communication (Putnam, 2000). Communities function less effectively when people increasingly see one another as adversaries rather than neighbors.
Performative cruelty accelerates that process.
Small acts still matter
This sounds overwhelming.
Fortunately, the same social science that explains the spread of cruelty also points toward modest but meaningful interventions.
One is slowing down.
Daniel Kahneman distinguished between fast, intuitive thinking and slower, reflective thinking (Kahneman, 2011). Much online cruelty emerges from immediate emotional reactions. Pausing before reposting, commenting, or responding interrupts that cycle.
Another is practicing charitable interpretation. Most conflicts online begin with assumptions about motives rather than questions about intentions. Assuming good faith does not require abandoning disagreement. It simply requires recognizing another person’s humanity before assigning malicious intent.
A third involves rewarding different behaviors. If algorithms reward outrage through engagement, individuals can reward generosity by paying attention to it.
Share thoughtful conversations.
Praise acts of grace.
Celebrate people who admit mistakes.
Public attention shapes public behavior.
Finally, there is the quiet discipline of refusing to participate. Not every insult deserves amplification. Not every argument requires victory. Not every mistake needs an audience.
Sometimes choosing not to contribute to humiliation is itself an act of civic responsibility.
Choosing another performance
Every society teaches people what earns applause.
If cruelty consistently receives the loudest applause, more people will perform it.
But performances can change.
The same mechanisms that spread contempt can also spread patience, forgiveness, curiosity, and generosity.
These qualities rarely trend. They rarely go viral. They are often quiet. Yet they accumulate.
Character is built less through dramatic moments than through thousands of ordinary decisions made when no one is paying close attention.
Perhaps that is the paradox of our time.
Performative cruelty may be loud, but ordinary kindness remains remarkably powerful.
It changes conversations. It changes relationships. Over time, it changes culture.
Social change has never depended solely on laws or institutions. It has also depended on millions of people deciding what kind of person they want to be when they encounter disagreement, frustration, or the temptation to score an easy point at someone else’s expense.
That choice remains available to all of us.
References
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.