Invisible people

“Since you are precious and honoured in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life” (Isaiah 43:4).

Have you ever found yourself in a group, office, or meeting and noticed people exchanging secretive glances in your direction? Have you overheard cryptic comments being made among people who understood the “code,” but not you? Have you ever accidentally discovered plans, initiatives, or events that you were not invited to or included in, unlike your colleagues or friends? Have you often found that people don’t react to what you say or do, as if you were invisible? Sometimes, such reactions are a response to inappropriate behaviour, such as offensive remarks, tasteless jokes, absurd questions, or defiant displays. However, if you repeatedly encounter tacit rejection, evasive reactions, avoidance of eye contact, and oppressive silence regardless of what you do or say, it may be a case of ostracism, an invisible abuse.

The paradox of ostracism

The etymology of the word “ostracism” can only partially clarify its meaning: the óstrakon was the “ballot” in ancient Greece, represented by a shard of clay pottery or a shell on which the name of the person being voted for was written before being placed in an urn. In some cases, votes were cast for exclusion from the city, isolation and deprivation of rights, and the voters were anonymous and could not be held accountable or challenged personally, so responsibility for rejection was diffuse and collective.

The current meaning of the word “ostracism” in Romanian, English, and French refers to the “invisible abuse” of a person. Nothing necessarily concrete is done against them; rather, they are omitted and avoided through a lack of reaction, “non-behaviour”, discrimination, and ignoring, usually within a group. In ancient Greece, things were more straightforward because the accused was at least warned about the vote against them. In contrast, in the case of this contemporary social evil, no one warns the victim about their discrimination, rejection, or exclusion from a group or community. They end up noticing it themselves, which leaves them confused and unable to defend themselves effectively or find a way out of ostracism.

Psychologist Kipling D. Williams states that the social phenomenon of ostracism has been overlooked by sociologists over the past century. Similarly, it would be very difficult for victims of this invisible abuse in the workplace to seek justice in court. Why? Because it is difficult to bring charges or document a phenomenon defined by a lack of reaction, or to provide incriminating evidence for passivity, non-reaction, or not paying attention to someone. In court, evidence is usually presented for what has been done that is culpable, such as the violation of a law or rule, not for what has not been done that would have been desirable, polite, or civilised, or simply common sense or collegial.

Thus, we are faced with the paradox that ostracism is encountered at every turn—anyone can recognise it, whether they have experienced it, observed it, or contributed to it; yet it is very difficult to publicly identify, let alone counteract.

The diffuse nature of ostracism

There are significant differences between legal and moral norms. The former are explicitly formulated in a code of laws and certain regulations. They are binding and their violation, whether unintentional or deliberate, carries certain penalties. Moral norms, on the other hand, are conveyed more vaguely through education, either explicitly or implicitly, or through everyday practice. They are specific to the social environment of a particular community and may be more or less widespread and influential. They are not binding. They are imposed because they have generally proven useful and effective in resolving problems, and those who wish to be accepted into the community respect and propagate them themselves.

For example, no one arrests a young person for breaking a rule of politeness by not greeting an older colleague, a subordinate from the office next door, first, even though common sense dictates that they should greet them first. It may be his choice to follow or not follow the rule of politeness of which he is aware, or it may be that he has not assimilated it due to insufficient education. If he does not follow the rule, he may or may not feel ashamed depending on his character and how important social acceptance or recognition is to him. He may also encounter disapproval from those present, depending on how aware they are of the violation of a common-sense rule and how willing they are to show solidarity or indifference towards its observance.

In contrast, the “invisible” colleague’s freedom to react is limited. She can only informally and occasionally complain to trusted colleagues, with no guarantee that the situation will be remedied, and she may risk being viewed as a difficult person who misinterprets reality, gets hung up on trifles, has an inferiority complex, or suffers from persecutory delusion. All of this combined creates the unhealthy climate of invisible abuse.

Therefore, issues of morality are more diffuse. Ostracism, or invisible abuse, is a negative phenomenon related to group morality. Additionally, this negative phenomenon also bears the mark of the culture in which it manifests itself. There are differences between communities, such as villages and cities, regions of the country, countries, ethnic groups, historical periods, age groups, and professional groups.

If we think about the modern era, the issue was framed in terms of a good or tarnished reputation. Cases and literary characters who were faced with the imminence of a public scandal come to mind, a scandal that would have compromised their reputation and resulted in widespread opprobrium. Examples range from Milady, the cunning spy in The Three Musketeers, to the Dreyfus affair in the French army of the 19th century, and from Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind to Dumitrache in A Stormy Night. In the postmodern era, against the backdrop of diluted public opinion and daily media overexposure, one’s reputation no longer means the same thing. It has been replaced by publicity, which is preferred even when negative, as it keeps the memory of the person in question alive, because they desire celebrity at any cost.

The earliest signs of invisible abuse and ostracism can be seen in children’s group behaviour. In adulthood, these behaviours can take on a more sophisticated form though still childish, and can include dissimulation, coldness, and the perseverance that is specific to adults. We all remember phrases like these from childhood: “Let’s not play with X anymore!”; “Pretend you don’t see her!”; “If you’re still friends with Y, then I’m not talking to you anymore!” However, while these ostracising attitudes do not last long among children, among poorly socialised and emotionally immature adults, sharing antipathies, altercations, and defiance towards someone can become the basis for a bond that passes for friendship. This translates into a kind of twisted principle: “Your enemies are my enemies!” Psychologists suggest that the roots of this behaviour may lie even deeper, in a more natural and culturally unrefined relationship with others. Just as in nature, a chick that is different or weaker may be abandoned by its “family”, as portrayed in the story of the ugly duckling, cast out from its family of ducks, but which turns out to be a swan.

It should be noted that invisible abuse should not be confused with bullying among students, which involves verbal and physical aggression within a group. One person even said they would have preferred to be bullied, as they would have had concrete evidence of it, rather than being ignored, which is much more difficult to prove.

However, it is the social and psychological consequences of true invisible abuse that make us think and urge us to seek a solution. Experts list the three stages that the ostracised person goes through: suffering, attempts at servile submission, and then helplessness and depression. They draw attention to the possibility that some of those who are rejected may become violent. In 2003, 13 out of 15 attackers in US school shootings were students who had been ostracized by their peers.

What can be done to address this issue?

One possible way to clarify the problem of invisible abuse is to consider the following question: Is it ever justified as an attitude or a form of treatment towards members of a community or group? Or is it never justified?

If we think that perhaps the person in question deserved what they got in some reported cases, then we do not understand the moral and cultural issues involved. Regardless of someone’s guilt, there are fairer, more transparent, and more effective ways to punish or rehabilitate them. Those who choose silent, officially invisible ostracism tend to be a certain type of person. They often have gaps in their education and come from poor rural or suburban backgrounds. Such practices are commonly applied at various social levels and among various age groups in these areas.

They are usually incorporated into hierarchical organisations, in which those who are ostracised are defenceless and lack connections or leverage, while those who engage in invisible abuse rely on their group strength to impose their perception on others. They are protected by the group’s tacit solidarity for their concerted individual attitudes, and the official policy is to admit nothing.

Sometimes, invisible abuse is motivated not by joint activity or the sharing of privileges, but by the frivolous occupation of individuals who waste their time on distasteful “entertainment”, finding “losers” among their peers. Even popular sayings show such derogatory, discriminatory tendencies, depending on the circumstances: “Let the underdog speak,” “What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander,” “Blood is thicker than water,” “Charity begins at home,” “Look after your own,” “Some are more equal than others,” “Divide and conquer,” and so on.

Today, civilised societies are forming an organisational culture in the workplace that can eliminate practices that allow invisible abuse. This starts with employee selection through psychological profiling and specialised tests in terms of professional skills, temperament, principles, and cooperative attitude. Clear ethical guidelines are established within the organisation, and training and team-building activities are carried out to improve team spirit. The pyramidal structure is changed to a more egalitarian network structure, and assertive behaviour is promoted. When widely assimilated, this behaviour clarifies and heals interpersonal relationships.

Where behaviour has been shaped by the assimilation of principles such as mutual respect, good faith, the presumption of innocence, the pursuit of common goals and rewards, and the common good, ostracism no longer finds a favourable environment. Firstly, harassment, jokes that attack a person, and discussions about personal, intimate topics which can lead to gossip, making fun of people’s weaknesses, blackmail, and mockery are discouraged. Secondly, any tendencies someone may have to behave abusively are less likely to be echoed by others who have probably had a different upbringing and level of civility, and whose experience has taught them that ostracism would be counterproductive and dangerous, affecting the general atmosphere. Lastly, Christian morality is sometimes associated with lessons in assertive behaviour and deliberations for drawing up a code of ethics within organisations, institutions, and communities.

The principle of loving one’s fellow human beings provides the healthiest basis for equality. We are all God’s creations and no one is invisible to Him. If we feel even a tiny part of His infinite love for us, which is beyond our limited understanding, then we will treat everyone around us as having the same rights and status as His children, and therefore as our brothers and sisters. If we are His children, then we will act accordingly.