Abstract
This paper closes the third cluster of the volume by examining the contemporary domain in which the Teflon pattern operates within the specifically digital and online context that has become a substantial portion of contemporary public discourse. The argument proceeds through four interlocking analyses: the operation of online moral signaling as a distinct mode of public conduct, in which the visible expression of moral commitment functions in ways that systematically differ from the substantive practice of the moral commitments expressed; the documented patterns of cancellation asymmetry, in which the social punishments imposed for various forms of online conduct are distributed in ways that consistently favor parties with established institutional standing while falling with substantial weight upon parties without such standing; the operation of reputational enforcement as a distinct mechanism of social control that operates alongside but often in tension with the formal institutional mechanisms that the previous papers have examined; and the broader corruption of public discourse that follows from the cumulative effect of these dynamics. The paper applies the biblical critique developed in the first cluster to the patterns it documents, demonstrating that the dynamic identified by the Lord operates with particular intensity in the contemporary digital context, that the institutional and sociological mechanisms identified in the second cluster account for the persistence of the pattern despite its substantial damage to the broader conditions of public discourse, and that the recognition of the contemporary digital manifestations of the pattern is essential for any adequate understanding of how the pattern has come to shape so much of contemporary public life.
I. The Domain and Its Distinctive Features
The contemporary domain examined in this paper exhibits the Teflon pattern with several distinctive features that warrant explicit recognition before the analytical work begins. The digital and online context differs in important respects from the domains examined in the preceding papers of this cluster, and the differences shape both the operation of the pattern within the domain and the particular character of the analytical work the pattern requires.
The first distinctive feature is that the digital context has produced a substantial expansion in the scope of public conduct that is subject to public scrutiny and to the various forms of social pressure that the public scrutiny enables. Conduct that in earlier periods would have occurred largely outside the view of any audience beyond the immediate participants is now, in many cases, conducted in environments where it is recorded, disseminated, and subject to ongoing evaluation by audiences whose composition the original participants did not anticipate. The expansion has affected the conditions under which individuals operate in their public lives, in their professional lives, and even in portions of their personal lives that have come, through the conditions of digital connectivity, to occupy a position closer to public conduct than to private conduct in the sense those categories carried in earlier periods.
The second distinctive feature is that the digital context has produced new institutional structures through which the social pressures generated by online conduct are channeled into consequences for the parties involved. The institutional structures include the various platforms through which online discourse occurs, the algorithmic systems that determine which content reaches which audiences, the professional environments that have developed practices for responding to the social pressures generated through online discourse, and the various other institutional arrangements that translate online social pressures into substantive consequences for the parties subject to them. The structures are recent developments, and their operation has not, in many cases, been the subject of the kind of deliberate institutional consideration that older institutional structures have received. The cumulative effect is the operation of institutional structures whose substantive effects are substantial but whose internal operations are often opaque even to those who participate in them.
The third distinctive feature is that the digital context has produced a substantial transformation in the conditions under which moral discourse is conducted within contemporary societies. The conditions include the formats within which moral claims are articulated, the modes of engagement through which the claims are evaluated, the audiences before which the engagement occurs, and the relationship between the parties to the engagement and the broader publics whose attention the engagement attracts. The transformation is sufficiently substantial that the patterns of moral discourse in the digital context cannot be adequately analyzed through frameworks that were developed for the conditions of earlier periods, and the analytical work the present paper undertakes therefore requires some attention to the distinctive features of the digital context itself.
The fourth distinctive feature is that the digital context has produced new patterns of asymmetry between parties with substantial institutional resources and parties without such resources. The asymmetries operate through the access different parties have to the platforms through which online discourse occurs, the institutional support different parties can mobilize when they become subject to online social pressures, the legal resources different parties can deploy when online social pressures produce legal consequences, and the various other forms of institutional resources that affect parties’ capacity to navigate the digital environment. The asymmetries are, in many respects, more pronounced in the digital context than in earlier institutional contexts, because the digital context has produced new categories of resources whose distribution is itself unequal and because the resources required for effective navigation of the digital environment are distributed in ways that systematically favor parties with substantial institutional standing.
The biblical perspective the volume maintains throughout does not commit the analysis to particular positions on the substantive questions about how contemporary societies ought to organize their digital environments, the relative weight of different considerations in the formulation of policy in this domain, or the substantive correctness of particular practices that have developed within the digital context. The analysis is concerned, rather, with the consistency between what the credentialed class urges upon others in the digital context and what the same class practices in its own conduct, and the analysis of that consistency does not depend upon the resolution of the underlying substantive questions about digital governance.
II. The Operation of Online Moral Signaling
The first analytical task of the paper is to examine the operation of online moral signaling as a distinct mode of public conduct. The mode is sufficiently distinct from earlier modes of moral expression that it warrants analytical attention in its own right, and the analysis of its distinctive features provides substantial insight into the broader dynamics this paper examines.
Online moral signaling, as a distinct mode of public conduct, exhibits several characteristic features that distinguish it from substantive moral practice. The first characteristic feature is the substantial divergence between the costs of the signaling and the costs of the substantive moral commitment that the signaling purports to express. Substantive moral practice typically involves costs that the practitioner must bear: the costs of forgoing alternative courses of action, the costs of the practical inconveniences that the commitment entails, the costs of the social and material consequences that the commitment may produce. Online moral signaling, by contrast, typically involves comparatively minimal costs to the signaler. The signaling consists in the production of communications whose creation requires relatively little time, whose dissemination requires comparatively little effort, and whose consequences for the signaler are, in most cases, limited to the social rewards that the signaling is calibrated to produce. The divergence between the costs of the signaling and the costs of the substantive commitment is, in itself, one of the distinctive features of the mode, and it provides much of the analytical foundation for the broader argument the present paper develops.
The second characteristic feature is the systematic visibility of the signaling within the social networks through which it operates. The platforms on which online moral signaling occurs are designed to maximize the dissemination of content that produces engagement, and the algorithmic systems that govern the dissemination systematically favor content that generates the kinds of emotional response that moral signaling is calibrated to produce. The signaling is therefore disseminated through networks whose architecture amplifies its visibility, and the visibility produces the social rewards that the signaling was calibrated to generate. The visibility operates in ways that are systematically different from the visibility of substantive moral practice, since substantive moral practice typically does not benefit from the algorithmic amplification that online signaling enjoys, and the substantive practice is therefore typically less visible than the signaling that purports to express the same commitments.
The third characteristic feature is the social rewards that the signaling produces for the signaler within the relevant social networks. The rewards include the affirmation expressed by other participants in the networks, the social standing that accrues to the signaler within the networks, the network effects by which signaling generates further connections that produce further opportunities for signaling, and the various other forms of social recognition that the networks distribute. The rewards are substantial enough that they constitute, for many participants, a significant portion of the broader social compensation they receive for their participation in the relevant networks. The rewards are also distributed in ways that systematically favor signaling over substantive practice, since the networks have limited capacity to evaluate the substantive practice that occurs outside the networks themselves and substantial capacity to evaluate the signaling that occurs within them.
The fourth characteristic feature is the substantial separation between the audience for the signaling and the parties who would be affected by the substantive moral practice the signaling purports to express. The signaling is directed primarily at audiences within the networks where it occurs, and the audiences typically do not include the parties whose interests are most directly affected by the substantive moral matters the signaling addresses. The separation has the effect of reducing the substantive consequences of the signaling for the parties who would be affected by the substantive practice, since the signaling produces no direct benefit for those parties even when it produces substantial social rewards for the signaler. The separation also has the effect of reducing the accountability the signaler faces to the parties whose interests the substantive matters affect, since the signaler is accountable primarily to the network audience rather than to the parties whose interests the signaling addresses.
The cumulative effect of these characteristic features is the production of a distinctive mode of public conduct in which moral signaling has been substantially decoupled from substantive moral practice. The signaling continues to use the vocabulary of moral commitment, the signaling continues to address matters of substantive moral importance, the signaling continues to produce social effects within the networks where it occurs. But the substantive commitments the signaling expresses are, in many cases, not substantively practiced by the signalers; the substantive consequences of the matters addressed are, in many cases, not substantively borne by the signalers; and the substantive accountability for the matters addressed is, in many cases, not substantively faced by the signalers. The mode of public conduct that has emerged is therefore one in which the appearance of moral commitment has been substantially separated from the substance of moral practice, and the separation is one of the central features of the broader dynamic this paper examines.
The biblical critique of this mode of public conduct, articulated most directly in the analysis of performative righteousness in Matthew 6 and examined in White Papers 2 and 10, applies with particular force to the contemporary digital context. The Lord’s analysis of performative righteousness identified the central dynamic with precision: the conduct that has been calibrated for its visibility to human audiences has, by that very calibration, exhausted its proper reward in the human audience that has witnessed it. “Verily I say unto you, They have their reward” (Matthew 6:2, KJV). The contemporary digital signaling that has been calibrated for its visibility to network audiences has, by the same dynamic, exhausted its proper reward in the network audiences that have witnessed it. The substantive heavenly reward that authentic substantive practice would have produced has been forfeited, and the signaler has received in full the social compensation that the signaling was calibrated to generate. The biblical pattern is exact. The contemporary digital application of the pattern requires no substantial extension of the original biblical analysis; it requires only the recognition that the dynamic the original analysis identified operates with particular intensity in the contemporary digital context.
III. The Documented Pattern of Cancellation Asymmetry
The second analytical task of the paper is to examine the documented patterns of cancellation asymmetry, in which the social punishments imposed for various forms of online conduct are distributed in ways that consistently favor parties with established institutional standing while falling with substantial weight upon parties without such standing. The patterns are documented across multiple journalistic and academic sources, and the analytical work consists in the assembly of the documented patterns and the recognition of what the assembled documentation reveals.
The first dimension of the asymmetry operates through the differential standards applied to the conduct of parties with different institutional standing. The same conduct, when engaged in by parties without substantial institutional standing, is more likely to be identified as the kind of conduct that warrants social punishment, while when engaged in by parties with substantial institutional standing it is more likely to be characterized through frameworks that distinguish it from the conduct that would warrant such punishment. The distinctions may involve technical considerations about the context within which the conduct occurred, the apparent intentions of the parties involved, the broader pattern of the parties’ public conduct, or various other considerations that are defensible on their own terms. The aggregate pattern of the distinctions, however, produces a system in which the standards applied to the conduct of parties without institutional standing are substantially more stringent than the standards applied to the conduct of parties with such standing, and the differential application is documented across extensive journalistic reporting on specific instances.
The second dimension of the asymmetry operates through the differential institutional support that different parties can mobilize when they become subject to social pressures. Parties with substantial institutional standing typically have access to professional resources for the management of the social pressures, including legal counsel, public relations expertise, institutional advocacy from organizations connected to them, and the various other forms of professional support that can be deployed in response to social pressures. Parties without such standing typically lack comparable resources, and their navigation of the social pressures must be conducted with substantially less professional support. The differential availability of institutional support has substantial implications for the outcomes the social pressures produce, since the parties with substantial support are typically able to manage the pressures in ways that limit the substantive consequences they face, while parties without such support are typically unable to do so. The cumulative effect is the production of a system in which the substantive consequences of social pressures correlate with the institutional standing of the parties involved, and the correlation produces the asymmetric pattern that the present section examines.
The third dimension of the asymmetry operates through the differential institutional protection that different parties enjoy in their professional positions. Parties with substantial institutional standing are typically protected by institutional structures that buffer them against the substantive consequences of social pressures, including the formal protections of their positions, the professional networks that provide alternative opportunities when current positions become untenable, and the various other forms of institutional protection that the broader analytical framework of this volume has examined. Parties without such standing are typically not protected by comparable structures, and their professional positions are correspondingly more vulnerable to the substantive consequences of social pressures. The cumulative effect is the production of a system in which the parties whose conduct has been subject to social pressures experience substantially different professional outcomes depending upon their institutional standing, and the differential outcomes produce the asymmetric pattern that this section examines.
The fourth dimension of the asymmetry operates through the differential public characterization of different parties whose conduct has produced social pressures. The public characterization of the conduct of parties with substantial institutional standing typically benefits from the protective dynamics examined in White Paper 9, including the prestige shielding, elite networks, and status preservation that produce favorable characterizations of the conduct of parties whose institutional standing requires such characterization. The public characterization of the conduct of parties without such standing typically operates under the opposite dynamics, with less protective treatment, less favorable interpretive frameworks, and less institutional advocacy on their behalf. The differential characterization has substantial implications for the substantive outcomes that follow from the social pressures, since the public characterization affects both the intensity of the pressures and the institutional responses to them.
The cumulative effect of these four dimensions of asymmetry is the production of a system in which the social pressures generated by online conduct are channeled into substantially different consequences depending upon the institutional standing of the parties involved. The same conduct, evaluated under the same nominal standards, produces substantially different outcomes when engaged in by parties with different institutional standing, and the differential outcomes follow patterns that consistently favor parties with substantial standing over parties without it. The pattern is documented across extensive journalistic and academic sources, and the documentation is sufficient to establish the asymmetric character of the system.
The institutional mechanisms identified in White Paper 6 account for the production of these asymmetric patterns in the digital context. The gap between formal and informal power produces the conditions under which the credentialed class can secure favorable treatment in the application of standards whose formal language applies to all participants in the digital environment. The discretionary nature of cancellation decisions produces the patterns of selective application examined in this section. The insider protections produce the relational dynamics through which the conduct of parties with substantial standing is less consistently subject to severe consequences. The procedural asymmetries produce the conditions under which the burden of navigating cancellation processes falls upon parties least able to bear it. The institutional analysis developed in the second cluster of this volume therefore applies with particular precision to the digital context, and the application of that analysis is sufficient to explain the production of the asymmetric patterns the present section has examined.
IV. The Operation of Reputational Enforcement
The third analytical task of the paper is to examine the operation of reputational enforcement as a distinct mechanism of social control that operates alongside but often in tension with the formal institutional mechanisms that the previous papers have examined. The mechanism has emerged within the digital context as a substantial feature of contemporary public life, and its operation has implications for the broader analytical work this volume has been undertaking.
Reputational enforcement, as a distinct mechanism of social control, operates through several specific channels. The first channel is the documentation of conduct that has been characterized as worthy of social pressure. The documentation typically involves the recording, dissemination, and ongoing public availability of evidence concerning the conduct in question. The documentation may include direct recordings of the conduct, screenshots of communications related to it, contextual information that frames the conduct within particular interpretive frameworks, and the various other forms of evidence that support the characterization of the conduct as warranting social pressure. The documentation has substantial implications for the parties whose conduct has been documented, since the documentation typically remains available for ongoing reference long after the immediate social pressure has subsided, and the ongoing availability affects the parties’ subsequent capacity to navigate professional and social environments.
The second channel is the dissemination of the documented conduct through networks that maximize its visibility within the broader public. The dissemination operates through the algorithmic systems of the platforms where the conduct is documented, through the deliberate sharing by participants in the networks where the conduct is documented, and through the various other forms of communication that the digital context enables. The dissemination produces the broader public awareness of the conduct that is necessary for the substantive social pressures to develop, and the dissemination is amplified by the same algorithmic systems that amplify other forms of high-engagement content. The patterns of dissemination are not, in most cases, the product of any centralized decision; they emerge from the distributed operation of the platforms and the participants who operate within them, and the resulting patterns reflect the structural features of the relevant systems rather than any deliberate institutional intention.
The third channel is the institutional responses that the documented and disseminated conduct produces. The responses include actions taken by the institutions that employ the parties involved, by the professional associations to which they belong, by the educational institutions with which they are affiliated, by the platforms that host their online presence, and by the various other institutions whose decisions affect their professional and social standing. The institutional responses are typically calibrated to the perceived intensity of the public pressure rather than to any independent evaluation of the substantive merits of the conduct in question, and the calibration produces the conditions under which the institutional consequences of conduct can vary substantially depending upon the patterns of dissemination the conduct has received. The cumulative effect is the production of a system in which the substantive consequences of conduct depend substantially upon the operation of the dissemination patterns rather than upon any independent evaluation of the conduct itself.
The fourth channel is the broader social and professional consequences that the institutional responses produce for the parties involved. The consequences may include the loss of employment, the loss of professional standing, the loss of educational opportunities, the loss of access to platforms through which the parties had previously engaged in public discourse, and the various other forms of substantial damage that the institutional responses can produce. The consequences typically extend well beyond the immediate institutional decisions, since the documentation of the original conduct remains available for ongoing reference and continues to affect the parties’ capacity to navigate subsequent professional and social environments. The cumulative effect is the production of a system in which conduct that has been subject to reputational enforcement can produce substantive consequences for the parties involved over extended periods, and the consequences can be substantially more severe than the consequences that comparable conduct would have produced in earlier institutional contexts where the digital documentation and dissemination dynamics did not operate.
The reputational enforcement mechanism operates in important ways that differ from the formal institutional mechanisms examined in the preceding papers of this cluster. The formal mechanisms operate through institutional procedures that, however imperfect their operation, include at least nominal commitments to procedural fairness, to evaluation of evidence according to established standards, and to the proportionality of responses to the substantive gravity of the conduct in question. The reputational enforcement mechanism operates without such procedural commitments. The mechanism is driven by the dynamics of online attention rather than by any institutional procedure designed to evaluate the merits of particular cases. The mechanism produces substantive consequences without affording the parties subject to it the procedural protections that formal institutional mechanisms typically provide. The mechanism is, in important respects, less constrained by considerations of procedural fairness than the formal institutional mechanisms that operate alongside it, and the lack of constraint produces the conditions under which substantial consequences can be imposed without the procedural deliberation that earlier institutional contexts required.
The asymmetric operation of the reputational enforcement mechanism follows the patterns examined in the preceding section. The mechanism falls with substantial weight upon parties without substantial institutional standing, while parties with such standing are systematically protected by the various dynamics this volume has been examining throughout. The asymmetry produces a system in which the substantive consequences of the mechanism are distributed in ways that consistently favor parties whose institutional standing affords them protection, and the distribution produces the broader pattern this volume has been documenting throughout. The recognition of this asymmetry is essential for any adequate understanding of how the reputational enforcement mechanism operates within the contemporary digital context.
V. The Corruption of Public Discourse
The fourth analytical task of the paper is to examine the broader corruption of public discourse that follows from the cumulative effect of the dynamics the preceding sections have documented. The corruption operates through several specific channels, and the cumulative effect is the substantial degradation of the conditions under which public discourse can be conducted in the contemporary digital context.
The first channel of corruption operates through the systematic substitution of signaling for substantive engagement. The dynamics examined in the second section of this paper produce the conditions under which signaling has been substantially decoupled from substantive practice, and the decoupling produces a public discourse in which the visible expression of moral commitment has come to occupy a position of greater social significance than the substantive practice of the commitments expressed. The substitution has substantial implications for the broader operation of public discourse, since the discourse comes to be organized around the production and reception of signals rather than around the substantive engagement with the matters the signals nominally address. The cumulative effect is the development of a public discourse in which the matters that are nominally being addressed are systematically obscured by the signaling dynamics that have come to dominate the discourse.
The second channel of corruption operates through the suppression of substantive engagement that does not conform to the dominant patterns of signaling. The dynamics examined in the third section of this paper produce the conditions under which substantive engagement that diverges from the dominant signaling patterns can produce substantial social and professional consequences for the parties who engage in it. The conditions have the effect of suppressing the substantive engagement that would otherwise contribute to the broader operation of public discourse, since the parties whose engagement would diverge from the dominant patterns are systematically incentivized to limit their engagement, to conform their public expressions to the dominant patterns, or to withdraw from public discourse entirely. The cumulative effect is the narrowing of the range of substantive engagement that occurs in the public discourse, and the narrowing produces conditions in which the discourse becomes substantially less capable of addressing the matters it nominally engages.
The third channel of corruption operates through the asymmetric application of the social pressures examined in the third section. The asymmetric application produces conditions in which the substantive engagement of parties with substantial institutional standing is systematically protected from the social pressures that would otherwise constrain it, while the substantive engagement of parties without such standing is systematically constrained by the social pressures that operate against them. The asymmetric protection of different parties from social pressures has substantial implications for the broader operation of public discourse, since the discourse comes to be organized around the engagement of parties whose institutional standing protects them and to exclude the engagement of parties who lack such protection. The cumulative effect is the production of a public discourse whose substantive content reflects the perspectives of parties with substantial institutional standing while marginalizing the perspectives of parties without such standing.
The fourth channel of corruption operates through the broader degradation of the substantive content of public discourse that the preceding dynamics produce. The discourse that emerges from the operation of these dynamics is one in which the matters being addressed are systematically obscured by signaling dynamics, in which substantive engagement is systematically suppressed by the threat of social pressures, in which the asymmetric application of those pressures systematically privileges certain perspectives over others, and in which the cumulative effect is the production of a discourse that bears progressively less relationship to the substantive matters it nominally engages. The degradation has implications for the broader capacity of contemporary societies to address the substantive matters that public discourse is supposed to engage, since the discourse becomes progressively less capable of producing the substantive deliberation that public engagement is supposed to provide.
The biblical perspective on this corruption is severe. The biblical literature consistently treats the substantive engagement with matters of public concern as a central responsibility of those who have been given the opportunity to participate in such engagement, and the failure to engage substantively, the substitution of signaling for substantive engagement, the suppression of substantive engagement that diverges from dominant patterns, and the asymmetric application of social pressures that produces these failures are all subject to the broader biblical critique that this volume has been developing. The contemporary corruption of public discourse, examined through the analytical framework of this volume, represents the operation of the Teflon pattern at the level of the broader public discourse itself, and the recognition of this fact has important implications for any adequate understanding of how the pattern has come to shape the conditions of contemporary public life.
VI. The Biblical Critique Applied and the Conclusion of the Cluster
The closing analytical task of the paper is to apply the biblical critique developed in the first cluster of this volume to the patterns the preceding sections have documented, and in doing so to provide the conclusion of the third cluster as a whole.
The first observation is that the patterns documented in this paper instantiate the dynamic the biblical literature condemns with particular intensity in the contemporary digital context. The credentialed class has, through the dynamics examined in the preceding sections, secured for itself substantial protection from the social pressures that fall with substantial weight upon parties without comparable standing. The class engages in patterns of online signaling that produce social rewards while operating at substantial distance from the substantive practice the signaling purports to express. The class operates within institutional structures that systematically protect its members from the consequences ordinary participants face for analogous conduct. The pattern is, in its formal structure, the pattern the Lord identified in Matthew 23, the pattern examined in the analysis of performative righteousness in Matthew 6, and the pattern that the analytical framework of this volume has been examining throughout. The contemporary digital context provides a particularly visible setting within which the pattern operates, and the operation in this setting has consequences for the broader public discourse that affect the conditions under which contemporary societies conduct their public life.
The second observation is that the contemporary digital context exhibits the analytical framework of this volume with particular clarity. The institutional mechanisms identified in White Paper 6 operate in the digital context through the platforms that govern online discourse, the algorithmic systems that determine which content reaches which audiences, the professional environments that respond to digital social pressures, and the various other institutional structures that translate online dynamics into substantive consequences. The sociological dynamics identified in White Paper 9 operate in the digital context through the prestige shielding that protects parties with substantial standing, the elite networks that mobilize protective resources for their members, the status preservation dynamics that suppress information that would threaten the standing of network members, and the broader social environments that produce the conditions for the asymmetric application of social pressures. The performative sacrifice dynamics identified in White Paper 10 operate in the digital context with particular intensity, since the digital context provides distinctive opportunities for the construction of symbolic performances that substitute for the substantive practice they purport to express. The analytical framework developed in the second cluster of this volume therefore applies with particular precision to the digital context, and the application provides substantial explanatory traction in understanding the operation of the patterns this paper has examined.
The third observation is that the patterns examined throughout this cluster, of which the digital patterns are the final instance, demonstrate the universality of the Teflon dynamic across the full range of contemporary institutional life. The cluster has examined environmental policy, public health emergency response, financial regulation, technocratic governance, and the contemporary digital context. The patterns documented in each of these domains exhibit the same underlying dynamic that the first cluster of this volume identified through the biblical critique, the same underlying dynamic that the second cluster examined through the institutional and sociological analysis, and the same underlying dynamic that the present cluster has documented through the examination of contemporary domains. The universality of the dynamic across so many different contemporary contexts is, in itself, one of the central findings of the cluster, and the universality has substantial implications for any adequate understanding of the broader conditions of contemporary institutional life.
The fourth observation is that the universality of the pattern across contemporary contexts indicates that the pattern is not a peripheral feature of any particular institutional sector but a central feature of the broader institutional landscape within which contemporary societies operate. The pattern operates in environmental policy, in public health, in financial regulation, in technocratic governance, in the digital context, and, as the next cluster will examine, in religious institutions across multiple traditions. The pattern operates wherever credentialed classes occupy positions of authority over populations subject to their decisions, and the pattern produces, with depressing regularity, the asymmetric application of the standards the credentialed classes articulate. The recognition of this universality is essential for any adequate understanding of the broader institutional dynamics of contemporary societies, and the application of the biblical critique developed in this volume to the universal pattern is essential for any adequate response to it.
The fifth observation is that the biblical critique demands a response that addresses both the immediate consequences of the patterns documented throughout this cluster and the underlying institutional and ideological frameworks that have produced them. The immediate consequences include the asymmetric application of standards in particular cases, the substantive damage suffered by parties whose institutional standing has not protected them from the asymmetric application, the corruption of the institutional functions that the standards were designed to serve, and the broader degradation of the conditions under which public discourse can be conducted. The underlying frameworks include the institutional mechanisms that produce elite exemption, the sociological dynamics that produce moral insulation, the performative sacrifice dynamics that substitute appearance for substance, and the broader technocratic and managerial framework within which these dynamics operate across so many sectors of contemporary institutional life. The response that the biblical critique demands must address both the immediate consequences and the underlying frameworks, and the response cannot be effective if it addresses only the immediate consequences while leaving the underlying frameworks in operation.
The cluster closes with the observation that the fourth cluster of this volume will turn from contemporary domains to the comparative examination of how the same pattern operates within religious institutions across multiple traditions. The comparative examination will provide further confirmation that the pattern this volume has been examining is universal rather than specific to any particular institutional context, and the comparative examination will provide the empirical foundation for the diagnostic instruments that will conclude the volume. The diagnostic instruments will provide practical tools for the identification of the pattern in any institutional context in which it may appear, and the tools will enable readers of the volume to apply the analytical framework developed throughout the volume to their own particular institutional contexts. The work of the third cluster, examining contemporary domains, will inform both the comparative examinations of the fourth cluster and the diagnostic instruments that follow, and the work will continue to provide the analytical foundation upon which the remaining work of the volume proceeds.
Notes
Note 1. The analytical work of this paper does not undertake to settle the substantive questions about how contemporary societies ought to organize their digital environments, the relative weight of different considerations in the formulation of policy in this domain, or the substantive correctness of particular practices that have developed within the digital context. The biblical critique that the paper develops applies to the question of consistency between what the credentialed class urges upon others in the digital context and what the same class practices in its own conduct, and the application of the critique does not depend upon the resolution of the underlying substantive questions about digital governance.
Note 2. The operation of online moral signaling examined in the second section bears important parallels to the analysis of performative righteousness in Matthew 6, examined in White Papers 2 and 10. The contemporary digital context has provided distinctive conditions within which the dynamic identified in the original biblical analysis operates with particular intensity, and the recognition of this fact is essential for understanding the analytical work the present paper has undertaken. The original biblical analysis applies with no substantial extension to the contemporary digital context; it requires only the recognition that the digital context provides distinctive conditions for the operation of the dynamic the original analysis identified.
Note 3. The documentation of cancellation asymmetry examined in the third section is available in extensive journalistic sources that have examined specific cases across recent years. The paper has not undertaken to attribute particular instances to particular parties; the analytical interest of the paper lies in the recognition of the patterns as features of the broader institutional and sociological dynamics within the digital context, and the documentation is sufficient on its face to establish the patterns the paper has examined.
Note 4. The operation of reputational enforcement examined in the fourth section has been the subject of substantial scholarly and journalistic analysis. The paper has applied the analytical framework developed in the first two clusters of this volume to the patterns documented in that literature, with the recognition that the existing literature provides substantial empirical foundation for the analytical claims the paper has undertaken.
Note 5. The corruption of public discourse examined in the fifth section is documented in various studies of contemporary public discourse, in the broader analytical literature on the conditions of public engagement in the digital context, and in the various other sources that have examined the substantive content of contemporary public discourse. The paper has not undertaken to construct any particular reading of the underlying literature; the documentation is sufficient on its face to establish the patterns of corruption the section has examined.
Note 6. The reference in the closing section to the universality of the Teflon pattern across contemporary contexts should not be taken to suggest that all contemporary institutions are equally affected by the pattern. The intensity with which the pattern operates varies across institutional contexts, and the variations are themselves important features of the broader institutional landscape. The recognition of the universality of the pattern, however, has substantial implications for any adequate understanding of the broader conditions of contemporary institutional life, and the recognition is intended to support the kind of institutional self-examination that the addressing of the pattern requires across the full range of contexts in which it operates.
References
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611/Public Domain). Cambridge edition. References in this paper to Matthew, the prophetic literature, and the apostolic epistles follow the Authorized Version.
Boice, J. M. (1986). Foundations of the Christian faith. InterVarsity Press.
Calvin, J. (1559/1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster Press.
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton. [Cited for analytical observations about the effects of digital media; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Carson, D. A. (2008). Christ and culture revisited. Eerdmans.
Chrysostom, J. (4th century/1996). Homilies on Matthew (G. Prevost, Trans.). Hendrickson.
Dever, M. (2012). The church: The Gospel made visible. B&H Academic.
Edwards, J. (1746/1959). A treatise concerning religious affections (J. E. Smith, Ed.). Yale University Press.
Ferguson, S. B. (2007). In Christ alone: Living the Gospel centered life. Reformation Trust.
Frame, J. M. (2008). The doctrine of the Christian life. P&R Publishing.
Goldsworthy, G. (2000). Preaching the whole Bible as Christian Scripture. Eerdmans.
Greer, J. M. (2016). Dark age America: Climate change, cultural collapse, and the hard future ahead. New Society Publishers. [Cited for analytical observations about contemporary discourse; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Penguin Press. [Cited for analytical observations about digital effects; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Henry, M. (1706/1991). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible. Hendrickson.
Hodge, C. (1872/1997). Systematic theology. Hendrickson.
Hughes, R. K. (2001). Disciplines of a godly man (Rev. ed.). Crossway.
Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism. Dutton.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. W. W. Norton. [Cited for analytical observations about modern public culture; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1959). Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Eerdmans.
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Press. [Cited for analytical observations about contemporary discourse; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
MacArthur, J. (2007). The Jesus you can’t ignore: What you must learn from the bold confrontations of Christ. Thomas Nelson.
Manton, T. (1693/1962). A practical commentary, or an exposition with notes on the epistle of James. Banner of Truth.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill. [Cited for analytical observations about media effects; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Mohler, R. A. (2008). Culture shift: Engaging current issues with timeless truth. Multnomah.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: Aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.
Niebuhr, R. (1932). Moral man and immoral society. Charles Scribner’s Sons. [Cited for analytical observations about institutional behavior; broader theological framework is not endorsed.]
Owen, J. (1668/1991). The mortification of sin in believers (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Banner of Truth.
Packer, J. I. (1973). Knowing God. InterVarsity Press.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press. [Cited for analytical observations about algorithmic dissemination; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Piper, J. (1995). Future grace: The purifying power of the promises of God. Multnomah.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. Viking. [Cited for analytical observations about media and discourse; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Powlison, D. (2003). Seeing with new eyes: Counseling and the human condition through the lens of Scripture. P&R Publishing.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. [Cited for analytical observations about social cohesion; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Ryle, J. C. (1879/2014). Holiness. Banner of Truth.
Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people, nations and business. Knopf. [Cited as representative of credentialed digital discourse; substantive positions are subject to the analytical critique developed in this paper.]
Sproul, R. C. (1985). The holiness of God. Tyndale House.
Stott, J. R. W. (1978). The message of the Sermon on the Mount. InterVarsity Press.
Trueman, C. R. (2020). The rise and triumph of the modern self: Cultural amnesia, expressive individualism, and the road to sexual revolution. Crossway.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. [Cited for analytical observations about digital social effects; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Veith, G. E. (1994). Postmodern times: A Christian guide to contemporary thought and culture. Crossway.
Watson, T. (1668/1965). A body of divinity. Banner of Truth.
Wells, D. F. (2008). The Courage to be Protestant: Truth-lovers, marketers, and emergents in the postmodern world. Eerdmans.
Wilson, D. (2014). Wordsmithy: Hot tips for the writing life. Canon Press.
Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. Knopf. [Cited for analytical observations about digital attention economics; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs. [Cited for analytical observations about digital platform economics; broader theoretical framework is presented as subject to ongoing debate.]
