The author, Vesna Prekopic, reflects on the 2024 list of newly coined Swedish words, observing how language evolves to reflect societal changes. She initially proposes a new word, ”provokatörstics,” to describe a burgeoning personality type characterized by the deliberate use of hurtful, offensive, or provocative words and actions, seemingly for the sole purpose of disruption. Prekopic identifies this behavior as a conscious choice, not an uncontrollable impulse, highlighting the perpetrators’ enjoyment of the ensuing chaos, uncertainty, and garnered attention, regardless of its negative connotation.
This proposed term seeks to encapsulate a specific type of individual who thrives on creating discord. They are not merely expressing unpopular opinions or engaging in healthy debate; their primary motivation is the provocation itself. They derive satisfaction from the discomfort and unease they inflict upon others, and the subsequent attention they receive, even if it’s negative, further fuels their behavior. This pattern becomes problematic when such individuals hold positions of influence, as their actions can overshadow the importance of their work and erode public trust.
Prekopic provides examples of this behavior, both in personal and public spheres. She notes that while irritating ”provokatörstics” within one’s personal circle are largely contained, the actions of public figures with this trait can have broader societal consequences. She cites Lars Trägårdh, a government-appointed investigator tasked with compiling a Swedish cultural canon, whose controversial statements regarding the committee’s work sparked widespread criticism. His remarks, perceived as dismissive of certain groups and prioritizing individual intellect over representation, became emblematic of his perceived unsuitability for the role, ultimately casting a shadow over the project itself.
Another example cited is Zlatan Ibrahimović, whose perceived passive-aggressive praise of Qatar during the FIFA World Cup generated controversy, though primarily impacting his own reputation. Prekopic contrasts this with instances where public figures, like politicians or government-appointed officials, engage in provocative behavior that detracts from their responsibilities, arguing that at this point, the indulgence in provocation becomes detrimental. The author suggests that Trägårdh’s behavior, and arguably Ibrahimović’s, exemplifies this detrimental pattern.
Prekopic further explores the underlying dynamics that enable such behavior, highlighting an interview with Trägårdh where he essentially dismisses criticism by attributing his actions to his personality. This, she argues, underscores a broader societal issue: the ready acceptance of such justifications. She points to the media’s complicity in this cycle, suggesting that the inherent news value of controversy incentivizes and amplifies provocative behavior, creating a feedback loop that rewards those who consistently generate such content.
Ultimately, Prekopic retracts her proposed neologism. While acknowledging the need for language to adapt to evolving social phenomena, she concludes that amplifying the very behavior she seeks to define would be counterproductive. She recognizes that introducing a label like ”provokatörstics” might inadvertently legitimize and normalize the behavior, providing further incentive for individuals to engage in it, especially given the potential for media attention. Therefore, she decides against adding fuel to the fire, recognizing that society doesn’t need more provocation for its own sake. Instead, the focus should be on addressing the underlying issues that contribute to and reward such behavior.
