Don’t be a Karen

What the archetype reveals about us

This article is part of the *Investigating Human Behaviour* publication.

A Karen moment

On holiday in Mallorca in 2025, I found myself standing in line at a hotel reception. Ahead of me was an elderly white woman speaking with the receptionist. The exchange was unremarkable until the receptionist politely asked for her room number.

The woman snapped.

“Why do you always ask for my number? I’ve been coming to Mallorca for 30 years — you should know my face!”

The receptionist, visibly taken aback, apologised and calmly explained that with so many guests, asking for a room number was the most efficient way to help everyone. The woman scoffed, muttered something under her breath, and stormed off.

I was left with a mix of shock and amusement. The entitlement. The expectation of being recognised and treated as exceptional. The dismissive tone toward someone simply doing their job. The thought arrived uninvited: That was textbook.

This brief encounter captured the essence of a social archetype that has become a cultural shorthand for a particular kind of public behaviour — one that reflects deeper issues around power, privilege, and accountability.

What is a “Karen”?

“Karen” has entered popular language as a label for a specific pattern of behaviour. It typically describes individuals — most often middle-class white women — who use perceived social authority to demand special treatment, escalate minor conflicts, or assert dominance, frequently at the expense of service workers or people from marginalised groups.

One of the most widely recognised examples occurred in 2020, when a white woman in New York’s Central Park falsely claimed that a Black man was threatening her during a disagreement over leash rules. The incident, recorded and shared online, became a defining moment in the rise of the modern “Karen” archetype.

What mattered wasn’t just the conflict itself, but the instinctive use of social power — particularly the weaponisation of fear and authority — to control the situation.

Old behaviour, new visibility

While the label is new, the behaviour is not.

Long before “Karen” became a meme, Black communities used terms like Miss Ann to describe white women who reinforced racist systems through manipulation, entitlement, or authoritarian behaviour. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Becky emerged as a descriptor for younger white women oblivious to their racial and social privilege.

What has changed is visibility.

Smartphones and social media have turned private incidents into public evidence. Platforms like TikTok and Twitter now function as collective mirrors, exposing everyday moments that once went unchallenged. Behaviour that relied on social silence now unfolds under global scrutiny.

Why does “Karen” behaviour emerge?

No one wakes up intending to become a meme. These behaviours are often rooted in learned expectations rather than conscious malice.

Many cases share common contributing factors:

• Upbringing in environments that reward control, hierarchy, or dominance
• Cultural reinforcement of entitlement and consumer sovereignty
• Low tolerance for frustration and perceived disrespect
• Social conditioning that frames confrontation as effective

When expectations of deference aren’t met, emotional regulation falters — and control becomes the goal.

Importantly, these reactions are often less about the immediate situation and more about threatened identity: Who am I if I’m not being prioritised?

Social media’s double edge

The “Karen” meme gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement — periods that exposed stark inequalities in how rules, safety, and authority were applied.

Social media plays a dual role. It documents behaviour and enables accountability, but it also amplifies outrage and encourages spectacle. Some viral moments prompt reflection and change; others devolve into public shaming.

Still, the underlying shift matters: these interactions are no longer invisible. They are recorded, contextualised, and debated — often by the very communities most affected by them.

Criticism and complexity

The term “Karen” is not without controversy.

Critics argue that it can be sexist, ageist, or classist, disproportionately targeting outspoken women and reducing complex individuals to caricatures. There’s legitimate concern that the label may discourage valid complaints or silence people unfairly.

Supporters counter that “Karen” critiques behaviour, not identity. Used responsibly, it functions as a cultural checkpoint — calling out actions that weaponise privilege, fear, or authority, rather than punishing assertiveness itself.

Both perspectives can be true. The term’s usefulness depends on how carefully it’s applied.

Real-world consequences

For those branded a “Karen,” consequences can include public backlash, reputational damage, job loss, or legal scrutiny. But the greater harm often falls on those targeted — particularly service workers and people of colour, who may face intimidation, trauma, or unjust involvement with authorities.

These encounters reveal how unevenly social power is distributed — and how easily it can be abused in everyday settings.

Is “Karen” behaviour culturally specific?

While entitlement exists everywhere, the “Karen” archetype is especially rooted in Western contexts shaped by histories of racial hierarchy and consumer privilege. It relies on systems where whiteness, class, and perceived respectability confer unspoken authority.

In societies without these dynamics — or where social power operates differently — the label loses much of its meaning.

How to deal with a “Karen” encounter

If you find yourself on the receiving end of this behaviour, a few principles can help:

• Stay calm. Emotional restraint reduces escalation and preserves your authority.
• Listen, briefly. Acknowledging what’s being said can defuse repetition without validating entitlement.
• Set firm boundaries. Be clear about what you can and cannot do — and don’t over-explain.
• End the interaction if necessary. Abuse is not something you’re required to endure.

Professionalism doesn’t mean submission. It means clarity, consistency, and self-respect.

Don’t be a Karen

The “Karen” meme isn’t just a joke about bad behaviour. It reflects deeper questions about power, entitlement, and how we treat others when we feel inconvenienced or ignored.

To not be a Karen is to choose empathy over ego, curiosity over control, and accountability over defensiveness. It means recognising when privilege is at play — and refusing to weaponise it.

Back at that hotel reception in Mallorca, the woman walked away convinced she’d been wronged. The receptionist remained — polite, composed, and professional — and helped the next guest in line.

That contrast says everything.

***#Investigating-human-behaviour* by Roman Schoeneboom is a comprehensive exploration of the intricacies that shape human actions and interactions. This publication offers a deep dive into the psychological, social, and cultural forces that drive behaviours, providing insights on topics such as #emotionalintelligence, #socialinfluence, and #habitformation.

Rooted in a deep curiosity about what drives human behaviour, Investigating human behaviour explores the underlying motivations behind our actions. The publication investigates subconscious patterns, emotions, and social dynamics, offering insights into why we behave in certain ways.