A volume to be edited together with Cornelia Ortlieb (Freie Universität, Department of German)

In the realm of social media, meticulously orchestrated practices of invective have swiftly emerged, codified and enacted in conjunction with other media, notably the press. Notably, the distributed agency in these practices involves initial tweets or postings merging with an amplifying chorus, ranging from a polyphonic expression of outrage to the potential manifestation of a justiciable threat. This phenomenon has prompted discussions about authorship, collective identity, and the institutional status of statements, navigating the boundary between the private and public spheres.

This intricate web of themes has a deep historical lineage, with parallels and deviations from earlier patterns seen in public displays, denunciations, and ritual punishments in effigy during the early modern period. Shaming, insulting, and blaming take on novel dimensions in social media, evolving from casual micro-aggressions to the infamous „sh** storm." 

The practices underpinning these phenomena include naming, extending beyond mere name-calling to encompass misleading labels and subtle undermining. Blaming encompasses blame, accusation, and reproach, especially in situations where responsibilities and agency are ambiguous or precarious.

The most intricate practice, shaming, connects with historical forms of shameful representation and is profoundly gendered. Women (and those perceived as female) face shaming for actions described in contradictory terms (too loud, too quiet, etc). They are often reduced to perceived physical shortcomings, from supposed cosmetic procedures to signs of aging and body fat percentage. This communication, aimed at constraining women's sphere of action, unfolds in social media through both verbal and visual means.

Investigating the role of mediatisation, contradictory maxims ("be kind" vs. "cancel..."), platform affordances, and historical continuities and ruptures is essential. A taxonomy of practices (trolling, doxing, gaslighting, cancelling, etc.) has emerged, yet remains largely unmapped in terms of their fields of reference and scope. We are particularly interested in understanding the gendered nature of these practices across image and text, their explicit and subcutaneous forms, as well as platform- and genre-specific contexts.

In the attention economy of social and other media, outrage or hate has become the predominant motor, informing algorithms and programming. However, the micro-practices translating this principle into action remain insufficiently explored. What is missing in particular is a comparative perspective on the period before and around 1800.