A few years ago, a young man in Australia who goes by the pseudonym Juan Mann (pronounced “one man,” to convey the idea of everyman, or that he is just “one man” wanting to make a difference) came up with the idea of “Free Hugs.”
The concept was absolutely elementary. He would stand in any area of a given town with high pedestrian traffic, wearing a sign with the words “Free Hugs” inscribed on it. Free hugs were exactly what he offered — nothing more, nothing less. At first, naturally, people were suspicious and slow to respond. But as time passed and he became a steady fixture in that city square, many people started responding. He gave out hugs to people of all ages and all walks of life without any discrimination. Others followed his lead and teams of “huggers” started to form.
At one point, the “Free Hugs” were deemed to be disturbing the peace and the movement was banned, but ten thousand signatures on a petition changed the minds of the city officials. Soon after, a video documenting the movement set to memorable music that became its anthem, garnered millions of views on YouTube. And “Free Hugs” spread worldwide. It is still spreading, but occasionally inciting controversy in its wake.
One needs to understand the concept of free hugs – public display of affection among total strangers –in the context of different cultures. To some, it carries specific cultural and historical connotations of the “free love” movements in western countries in the 1960s and 1970s. As such, it can appear to be the epitome of a liberal ideology that has long been discredited. Those movements of the “hippie” era did not, after all, bring about widespread peace or an improved society. And then, of course, the notion of public physical contact or affection among strangers is controversial in many countries, including our own. It challenges the notions of decency, as demonstrated when a young Saudi man was arrested for offering free hugs in Riyadh. Yet the presence of this movement among the youth and the public support it has garnered should challenge the rest of us to re-examine our values and assumptions in order to observe it with a clear understanding.
Why is the idea appealing to so many? And what actual harm is there in it? There is no evidence that any “Free Hugs” movement, despite the fact that it involves affectionate physical contact between strangers, has any sexual connotations. Nor can anyone truly demonstrate that it is political. Why do we have trouble believing that the impulse toward this basic form of human-to-human connection is really as simple as it appears?
I have been aware of this campaign since 2007 and perhaps oddly, the thing that stuck in my mind the most is a small comment that Juan Mann made during a televised interview. Asked where the idea came from, he replied that he had been feeling lonely and isolated after moving to a new city. Instead of dwelling on his own situation, however, he realized that if he felt lonely, others might as well felt the same way. He began “Free Hugs” in order to offer strangers some human contact to assuage loneliness. And in offering, he also received, because a hug is one thing that can be perfectly reciprocated. It’s the idea of giving something to others instead of trying to get something for oneself, even in one’s own time of need, which makes the simple action transformative. In the original Free Hugs video, which to date has had over 74 million views, the scene goes from black and white to color when Juan Mann succeeds in giving his first hug to a stranger after days of unsuccessful attempts. The suggestion is that, in reaching out for connection with others, we become fully real and alive.
Unless strong evidence to the contrary is found, perhaps we should assume that this social movement truly is as simple and as innocent as it appears.
