2008 Woodie Awards
A comfortable protest
Nat Hillard, U-Wire
Issue date: 5/27/08 Section: Opinion
The simplicity of the Free Hugs campaign is, in actuality, its downfall. The moment one begins to question the Free Hugs campaign - which, by the way, you will be labeled heartless for doing, as if you had said "I hate baby kittens!" - one begins to see the campaign for what it is: a comfortable protest.
This is a "movement" for our generation: minimal effort, maximal self-gratification and a nearly zero real effect. The informational video describing the Free Hug campaign on YouTube has received 27 million views. People feel they are part of a Movement with a capital M, that they don't have to question membership in this Movement because 27 million other people thought it was a good idea.
But who are these Free Huggers hugging? Ironically, not the people who need it most.
As I read the 120-page "Illustrated Guide to Free Hugs" available on the Movement's site, complete with 40 illustrations highlighting 30 separate styles of hug, I realized that the free huggers are not supposed to approach anyone for a hug, but rather get the hugs from people who approach them.
While this may eliminate problems in which hugger preference is the deciding factor, it still doesn't account for the problem of perverts. All it takes is for one person who longs for human contact and hasn't had any for awhile to touch a butt during a hug, and the free hugger might begin to question the movement. A hug is, in many ways, an inherently sexual gesture, a fact that the Free Hugs movement doesn't acknowledge. The hugger might think twice before frequenting that area again.
Add to that the pivotal question of "why?" It is a mighty convenient thing that the central message of this campaign is so inarguable. Could it be possible that huggers themselves could hide behind this simple message their nefarious intent? I read online about a birthday party of 10-year-olds that was invaded by older men holding "Free Hugs" signs. The free huggers were seemingly unaware that their gesture could mean anything else.
The bottom line: the Free Hugs movement is a sham. Self-absorbed, ineffectual and, when you get down to it, dangerous from the point of view of public health, it is a movement that is not meant to be questioned but that should be.
This column originally appeared in the Stanford Daily.
This is a "movement" for our generation: minimal effort, maximal self-gratification and a nearly zero real effect. The informational video describing the Free Hug campaign on YouTube has received 27 million views. People feel they are part of a Movement with a capital M, that they don't have to question membership in this Movement because 27 million other people thought it was a good idea.
But who are these Free Huggers hugging? Ironically, not the people who need it most.
As I read the 120-page "Illustrated Guide to Free Hugs" available on the Movement's site, complete with 40 illustrations highlighting 30 separate styles of hug, I realized that the free huggers are not supposed to approach anyone for a hug, but rather get the hugs from people who approach them.
While this may eliminate problems in which hugger preference is the deciding factor, it still doesn't account for the problem of perverts. All it takes is for one person who longs for human contact and hasn't had any for awhile to touch a butt during a hug, and the free hugger might begin to question the movement. A hug is, in many ways, an inherently sexual gesture, a fact that the Free Hugs movement doesn't acknowledge. The hugger might think twice before frequenting that area again.
Add to that the pivotal question of "why?" It is a mighty convenient thing that the central message of this campaign is so inarguable. Could it be possible that huggers themselves could hide behind this simple message their nefarious intent? I read online about a birthday party of 10-year-olds that was invaded by older men holding "Free Hugs" signs. The free huggers were seemingly unaware that their gesture could mean anything else.
The bottom line: the Free Hugs movement is a sham. Self-absorbed, ineffectual and, when you get down to it, dangerous from the point of view of public health, it is a movement that is not meant to be questioned but that should be.
This column originally appeared in the Stanford Daily.
Be the first to comment on this story