Young people of today’s world have seen quite a bit. From millions dying from COVID-19, to hundreds of school shootings, and global conflicts where civilian attacks and murders have become commonplace. That’s just to name a few of the ways that the upcoming generation has been exposed to violence, death, and tragedy. 

Following the 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, millions of students and young people took to the streets to protest. Mainly led by the organization March For Lives, which was founded by survivors of the shooting, students in every state and even globally walked out of school to demand better, and to show power in numbers. In the immediate aftermath, the mass mobilization that occurred to draw attention and call for immediate action was profound and made waves. Some states’ laws were strengthened as a result of the momentum. However, as time has continued, a generation that has begun leading movements against violence and suffering now faces a major roadblock.

Desensitization. 

It isn’t entirely due to a lack of empathy. According to a Harvard University Youth Poll, 61% of young people feel that no political violence is acceptable in the United States. The issue is much broader than empathy. It has to do more with burnout, a 24-hour news cycle, the harmful effects of social media, and the normalization of violence.

Before jumping into each of those other buckets, let’s be clear about what desensitization is. Merriam-Webster has two main definitions for the word:

1. to make (a sensitized or hypersensitive individual) insensitive or nonreactive to a sensitizing agent
2. to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it

It’s important to consider both definitions. The first notes the difference between someone being sensitive to information, or images, or news that formerly would have provoked more of a response. The second notes the “extinguish” which occurs to bring that reality about. 

For a moment, seeing a headline such as “Palestinian Death Toll Passes 64,000” gives a moment of pause, as that number is more than a number; it’s thousands of people murdered. The broader issue is to what extent headlines of tragedy can break through amongst thousands of other headlines of tragedy for the momentum needed to address the root causes of suffering globally. People are feeling hopeless, and the overwhelming nature of constant devastation from classrooms scarred with bullets to communities buried under rubble has extinguished much of the ability to believe that speaking up about it or trying to change anything can actually do something.

Burnt Out?

While it’s often referred to as a cliché from everyone’s favorite political speech or article, the world is truly in unprecedented times. What’s often forgotten, though, is that there are many parallels to moments throughout the history books that could be used to help navigate the challenges of today and tomorrow. Another cliche is acknowledging that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. When young people are blasted in the face daily with yet another instance where a school has been bombed in the Middle East, where yet another classroom of children has been slaughtered, and while yet another population is facing genocidal conditions where women and children make up the bulk of the deaths, it’s fair that young people doubt that anything would change. Because looking at all these examples, society nationally in the United States and even on the global stage is insane to expect that anything will change if the bulk of the response to mass tragedy and murder amounts to just “thoughts and prayers.” 

Not to mention that young people are also having to navigate being students, getting a job, paying off debt, and maybe just maybe being able to afford a home or an ER visit. 

When there’s a moment to breathe, there’s a headline.

In 1980, a new way of obtaining information was introduced: the 24-Hour News Cycle. CNN is where the concept originated, with news coverage every day, hour, and minute for the public to consume. While it certainly expanded the horizons for people to be aware, it also opened the floodgates to a much larger shift to the firehose of news stories, giving people whiplash daily and overwhelming the average consumer to the point where they just want to turn it all off. 

There isn’t a correct way to address this. There are concerns about the type of environment it creates in any country and how it could hinder people’s interest, willingness, or ability to access reliable information. Looking at scholarly literature within the topic of knowledge resistance in high information environments, the point is made that, “Not only is the sheer quantity of information growing, so too are the sources that people can choose for consuming information…A broad concern is that with so many choices, people can effectively resist knowledge.” 

At a certain point, the overwhelming nature of this type of media environment, where people can resist certain knowledge and instead be more vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation, but also just refuse to obtain information at all, poses a huge risk to vertical accountability. 

Civic participation can be even more under threat when there is lessening vertical accountability due to desensitization. If people choose to tune out the tough issues of the day, week, year, or century, then how can any of those issues be solved? At the same time, when there is that firehose of headlines, how can anyone be expected not to become burnt out or desensitized at a certain point?

Just keep scrolling…

The icing on the desensitized cake is the influence and addictive nature of social media. It’s the piece of the puzzle in all of this that is the least studied so far, yet could be bearing the largest impact, especially for young people. The Washington Post looked specifically at TikTok usage in the United States. The results of this analysis found that users are hooked, and many see an increase in scrolling on and opening the app. It was even described as an “addiction.” One valuable point made is that when people are on their phones more and more, and more than needed, it means that they aren’t engaging with family, friends, and community in real life. 

When young people have grown up with a media landscape that looks like Times Square with a bunch of quick-moving titles and short videos on screens, which has, in turn, made consuming it addictive, it’s no wonder that over time desensitization has flourished. 

Social media has also opened the doors for accessing information; it has brought the major stories of the day right to someone’s homescreen and fingertips. As much as that can contribute to the overwhelming nature, it can also be a powerful tool that gives people more knowledge that they wouldn’t have otherwise. 

Okay, so what do we do about it?

The solutions to the largest problems aren’t cut and dry, because if they were, then they probably would have been solved by now. When it comes to the issue of desensitization, a large part of the work that must be done to address it is the need to study how various parts of social media and the media landscape contribute to it. In addition to this, broadening mental health services to ensure that people who are overwhelmed and desensitized are able to access services that could be helpful to them. The largest thing contributing to this issue, though, might just have to be that nobody wants to talk about it. Nothing about the detrimental effects of the desensitization occurring specifically for young people is comforting or exciting, but it’s a reality. It has to be acknowledged and taken seriously because people’s lives, mental health, and democracy depend on it being better addressed and understood.