What can we learn from 12 Angry Men about how to behave on social media?
As any form of discourse on social media often tends to become ugly, we must look to Sidney Lumet’s intense crime-drama, 12 Angry Men for a solution.
More from Movies
- The story of a French emperor: Here’s where Napoleon will stream after theaters
- The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes honors its origins and far surpasses them
- Thanksgiving movie death toll: Why [SPOILER] is still alive
- No, Thanksgiving is not streaming yet (But here’s where it’ll land)
- Trolls Band Together soundtrack guide: Which songs play in the movie?
In the 21st century, we live in a sea of information. With just one click, we can access a variety of articles about politics, religion, entertainment etc. And since they’re so readily available, we tend to factor them into our conversations or arguments as our own. However, there is a huge difference between the writer/journalist’s technical experience and our opinion, which often leads to gaps in what we say. So, once that’s pointed out, the entire atmosphere becomes heated as we resort to ad hominem attacks based on personal prejudices, leading to a discussion that’s void of objectivity and facts.
As we progress as a society, the amount of perspective is bound to rise. But if the attitude towards voicing such opinions remains the same as it’s now, we’ll be heading towards a state of intellectual regression. That’s why we must look to 1957’s 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet and written by Reginald Rose, as it tackles issues regarding lack of understanding, subjective opinions and the importance of objective discussion. Because the movie includes 12 radical points of view, we can deduce its parallels with our modern mode of conversation and arrive at a viable solution
Analyzing the psychological similarities between 12 Angry Men and social media
The plot of 12 Angry Men revolves around a murder charge that’s been placed upon a minor and it’s up to the 12 jurors to decide whether he’s innocent or guilty. In addition to the establishing shot of the panel, the opening uncut six-minute scene does a marvelous job of letting us know the selfish state of mind of each juror. While juror #6 is in a hurry to go to the baseball match, #3 wants the meeting to end because he’s tired of doing jury duty. And as the scene goes on, apart from #8, we can see that nobody is really invested in the case due to personal reasons. Furthermore, the jury would’ve hung the kid without mulling over the facts if juror #8 wouldn’t have voted “not guilty”.
This selfishness shown by the majority of the jurors is mirrored by social media addicts and a lot of online publications. As trending topics get the most number of clicks, entertainment sites try to upload their articles in the most concise & click-bait way possible – thereby nullifying the nuance that’s needed for such sensitive topics. On the other hand, due to the inconsequential nature of the internet, we follow the herd mentality of praising or maligning a topic that’s being discussed and give in to our narrow-minded need for likes and re-tweets rather than the unbiased discussion the matter deserves. And since there’s an insurmountable of information that’s flowing in at a frenetic pace on the internet, we don’t wait to see the hurtful repercussions of an unprofessional article or a vindictive comment.
Coming back to 12 Angry Men, as the movie progresses we realize that those voting “guilty” are doing so not only because of their selfishness, but also because of their preconceived notions. While juror #3 showcases an underlying hatred for kids because of his strained relationship with his son, juror #10 exhibits discrimination against slum-dwellers which slowly takes an ugly turn. As these sentiments are subjective in nature, it forces the jurors to look at the case and the facts from a perspective that is exclusively favorable to their prejudices. In addition to that, since this venomous attitude was (not-so-surprisingly) looked down upon even in the 50’s, it veered the discussion away from the case as the jurors were compelled to constantly clarify their moral standards before focusing on the accused.
This kind of disrespectful behavior surfaces in social media whenever there’s any discussion on movies or politics. One of the recent examples being The Last Jedi, which was divisive to say the least and led to arguments that ended with one party abusing each other because their subjective opinions about what Star Wars means didn’t match. On another side of the spectrum, there’s a barrage of controversial allegations that are appearing on the social media. However, no one’s sifting through the details to find the legitimacy or illegitimacy of these accusations because of their perception of justice. Although it’s true that this revolution is necessary, but all we’re instigating is a binary discussion where anyone is wrong for requesting facts and details and anyone is destroying a stigma for blindly supporting baseless statements.
Due to this sentimental approach, the most controversial topics on the internet never come to a conclusion. That’s why whenever it’s brought up in some form on social media; we tend to follow a similar pattern without thinking about the dangerous precedence we’re setting. So, what’s the solution?
12 Angry Men’s juror #8 is the solution to our regressive form of communication
The primary reason for the existence of this 96-minute aggressive discussion is because juror #8 voted “not guilty”. Although the logic behind his rebellion was fleshed out later, his initial aim was to simply talk. It was not to debate whether he was correct and the rest of the 11 jurors were wrong, or vice versa. It was not to raise philosophical questions about humanity and social prejudice. He only raised his hand to vote against the rest of the jury and create an opportunity to discuss what they’re doing, while broadly self-analyzing their stance. And although it took a fair amount of time to convince a portion of the members to agree to his perspective, #8’s intention to communicate before advocating is what made all the difference in the world.
This intention to discuss first and judge later can solve two major faults in our approach towards conversing on social media websites. If one enters a discourse to examine a topic, they’ll get the chance to truly understand every facet of the argument and possibly emerge much more knowledgeable than before. However, we must shed all preconceived notions attained from every amateur article on the internet and submit our full attention to the subject in hand.
Secondly, we must have the willingness to listen to what others are saying instead of going in circles and hammering our agenda till someone gives up. As we’re aware that millions of people on the cyberspace are watching us take part in an argument, we instinctively try to have the last word even at the cost of losing the point of the conversation. But since that attitude has never resolved a divisive issue, we must listen first and then build our response around what everyone is saying, whilst keeping our perspective in focus as well.
So, after fulfilling his first agenda of beginning an objective discussion about what’s correct and incorrect, juror #8 injected an emotion that their conversation was completely devoid of: empathy. As most of the jurors had become aware of their prejudices, they started to stray away from their original perspective and began to judge the boy’s case by stepping into his shoes. In doing so, not only did they learn the difficult circumstances the boy had lived in and the various elements that were playing against him, but also understood how flawed they are as representatives of justice due to their broken state of mind. And with some further introspection, each and every juror understood the value of human life and how important it was to respect each other as members of the society in order to maintain one’s sanity.
Similarly, we should administer this sense of humanity while having any kind of conversation on social media. Of course it isn’t applicable when we’re talking about a case that’s criminally offensive or is factually objectionable. However, while talking about topics that are extremely subjective in nature, we mustn’t get distracted by the physical distance created by the internet into forgetting that we’re in fact conversing with a person with real feelings. Considering how there’s no literal medal for using profanity or deeply hurting someone’s sentiments, we should discuss civilly and build bridges instead of destroying them.
As social media websites like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook & Snapchat have blurred the line between a celebrity and the body of work they represent; we rush to judge them very crudely, all while ignoring the fact that at the end of the day they’re just flesh & blood. Furthermore, since this practice has led to self-proclaimed fans issuing death threats and petitioners claiming that the directors, actors or a production house are unworthy of helming their childhood IPs, we must take a step back to examine the precedence we’re creating. Instead, we must share our knowledge of the subject and partake in a collaborative effort with the creators to improve a film franchise, a novel or the artists’ next music album.
Next: Wes Anderson throwback review: The Royal Tenenbaums
12 Angry Men is a rare film that evokes a plethora of emotions due to its minimalist setting and focus on basic psychological complications. With an impressive script and impactful performances, Lumet had managed to create a microcosm of our society that has remained relevant even after 61 years. However, despite transitioning into the digital age, as traces of racism, bullying and discrimination still lives on in various corners of the cyberspace, we must remember the debate between these 12 angry jurors to tackle these anomalies. As the internet is a beautiful middle ground for people from all over the world to come closer as a species, we must strive to instill respect, class and nobility into the online community, and keep it conducive for generations to come.