Whether you’re apathetic, emphatic, or absolutely effing nuts, presidential elections bring the fundamental differences that we have with one another to the surface even more so than usual. The common ground that is left between us is eroded and washed away by the flood of polarizing bipartisan rhetoric that pushes our political extremes even farther away from one another. Maybe this is why liberals and conservatives shout at one another, because it is hard to hear one another from opposite poles of the political spectrum. Moderates--that elusive species that seems to be going the way of the Siberian snow leopard--can still hear one another with out having to raise their voices.
Ironically, it seems to be our society’s ability to communicate with more ease than this world has ever seen before that is contributing to the nastiness of our presidential elections. Social media is most definitely exacerbating the decline of civility in American politics. Right now on Facebook, I have 932 “friends.“ I have the capability to communicate my personal political preferences and beliefs to all 932 of these people in a matter of seconds. Because of social media, the power to publish has been given to the masses and the masses can now publish their thoughts instantaneously. I’m not saying that this is an entirely negative development, but it seems important to consider that no other generation in human history has had this type of power available to the masses.
In the past, publishing a statement to a large group of people required a good deal of effort. And I don’t think it is presumptuous for me to say that effort is a deterrent for many people, myself included. If publishing a statement about a political adversary required me to handwrite that statement 932 times and deliver it door-to-door, I would probably think long and hard about what I wanted to say about my political adversaries. If I had to use carrier pigeons to deliver my message, I would probably wonder if my message was constructive or reactive. I would want to make sure that it was a purposeful and persuasive message before I took the time to arrange all of the movable type in a printing press, or handwrite a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. The amount of time, effort, and money that the old avenues of publishing our opinions required probably affected the way those opinions were expressed. Social media allows us to publish our initial reaction to something, and those reactions are frequently uncensored, blunt, and extreme. Thanks to mobile devices equipped with social media and our human inclination toward binary thinking, I have seen some of the most hateful and polarizing statements made on Facebook during this election year.
Since social media also allows people to respond to these published comments, we are capable of having political “discourse” in an entirely different way than any other generation of human history. Technology allows us to have an instantaneous back-and-forth with one another while removing the face-to-face element that was normally a part of this type of exchange in the past. Since many people seem to feel a sense of impunity when it comes to digital communication, they are more likely to say something virtually that they might not communicate in reality, face-to-face. In other words, social media grants people larger balls--case in point proven--especially when it comes to controversial topics like religion or politics…which is becoming the same controversial topic for many Americans. (Hey IRS! Everything following the ellipses was for you).
The most frustrating part about this whole cluster-cuss of social media and politics is just how ineffective we are. Nothing that showed up in my newsfeed during this election year has changed my decision about who I want to win. (I have however changed my opinion about some of those 932 friends). Most of the statements that I have read on Facebook have done 1 of 2 things (again we are back to that damn binary thinking); they have either been so offensive and polarizing that I did not even take the time to entertain that person’s point of view, or they preach to the choir and just reinforce what I already believe. We have the opportunity to communicate with one another with an amount of ease that would shock and delight people from other time periods. I’m sure the Founding Fathers would have appreciated social media while they were making the two-week journey to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. Or would they have struggled with the power to publish their every thought in a matter of seconds the same way that we do? (Would the Founding Fathers even have time to write the Constitution if they were able to spend hours a day watching Gangnam style on Youtube or an entire season of Downton Abbey in their pajamas?) The effortlessness of publication and detachment that social media allows the masses is contributing to our inability to use digital communication in a purposeful and compelling manner. In other words, it's so easy to communicate that we put very little effort or thought into what we are saying at times.
I don’t think this inability to communicate civility during the communication era is entirely our fault. If we are taking our cues about how to use social media from the news media we are entrenched in every day, it’s not surprising that we are uncivilized. It’s not surprising that we fall back on sensationalism and ideological differences. Media is appealing to our lowest common denominator, our instinct to react to something instead of evaluating it. What appears to be a good business practice for media creates terrible rifts in our personal lives as wearing our most polarizing views on our sleeves becomes the new norm.
I wish I could say that I miss the days when religion and politics were taboo, but I have never lived in that world. I have had access to social media during every election that I have participated in. I am a part of the last generation that will know how to write in cursive, and the first generation that will have no concept of a private life. And while these election years act to destroy common ground through political discussions on Facebook that eventually devolve into one person comparing another person to Hitler, they also point out something very important. We have to start considering the effect that social media is having on our society. We have to start realizing that digital communication gives us all the power to publish, a power that has never been given to the masses before. There are so many beautiful implications and possibilities when everyone has the ability to practice their first amendment rights on such a large scale; but with great power comes great responsibility.
Ironically, it seems to be our society’s ability to communicate with more ease than this world has ever seen before that is contributing to the nastiness of our presidential elections. Social media is most definitely exacerbating the decline of civility in American politics. Right now on Facebook, I have 932 “friends.“ I have the capability to communicate my personal political preferences and beliefs to all 932 of these people in a matter of seconds. Because of social media, the power to publish has been given to the masses and the masses can now publish their thoughts instantaneously. I’m not saying that this is an entirely negative development, but it seems important to consider that no other generation in human history has had this type of power available to the masses.
In the past, publishing a statement to a large group of people required a good deal of effort. And I don’t think it is presumptuous for me to say that effort is a deterrent for many people, myself included. If publishing a statement about a political adversary required me to handwrite that statement 932 times and deliver it door-to-door, I would probably think long and hard about what I wanted to say about my political adversaries. If I had to use carrier pigeons to deliver my message, I would probably wonder if my message was constructive or reactive. I would want to make sure that it was a purposeful and persuasive message before I took the time to arrange all of the movable type in a printing press, or handwrite a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. The amount of time, effort, and money that the old avenues of publishing our opinions required probably affected the way those opinions were expressed. Social media allows us to publish our initial reaction to something, and those reactions are frequently uncensored, blunt, and extreme. Thanks to mobile devices equipped with social media and our human inclination toward binary thinking, I have seen some of the most hateful and polarizing statements made on Facebook during this election year.
Since social media also allows people to respond to these published comments, we are capable of having political “discourse” in an entirely different way than any other generation of human history. Technology allows us to have an instantaneous back-and-forth with one another while removing the face-to-face element that was normally a part of this type of exchange in the past. Since many people seem to feel a sense of impunity when it comes to digital communication, they are more likely to say something virtually that they might not communicate in reality, face-to-face. In other words, social media grants people larger balls--case in point proven--especially when it comes to controversial topics like religion or politics…which is becoming the same controversial topic for many Americans. (Hey IRS! Everything following the ellipses was for you).
The most frustrating part about this whole cluster-cuss of social media and politics is just how ineffective we are. Nothing that showed up in my newsfeed during this election year has changed my decision about who I want to win. (I have however changed my opinion about some of those 932 friends). Most of the statements that I have read on Facebook have done 1 of 2 things (again we are back to that damn binary thinking); they have either been so offensive and polarizing that I did not even take the time to entertain that person’s point of view, or they preach to the choir and just reinforce what I already believe. We have the opportunity to communicate with one another with an amount of ease that would shock and delight people from other time periods. I’m sure the Founding Fathers would have appreciated social media while they were making the two-week journey to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. Or would they have struggled with the power to publish their every thought in a matter of seconds the same way that we do? (Would the Founding Fathers even have time to write the Constitution if they were able to spend hours a day watching Gangnam style on Youtube or an entire season of Downton Abbey in their pajamas?) The effortlessness of publication and detachment that social media allows the masses is contributing to our inability to use digital communication in a purposeful and compelling manner. In other words, it's so easy to communicate that we put very little effort or thought into what we are saying at times.
I don’t think this inability to communicate civility during the communication era is entirely our fault. If we are taking our cues about how to use social media from the news media we are entrenched in every day, it’s not surprising that we are uncivilized. It’s not surprising that we fall back on sensationalism and ideological differences. Media is appealing to our lowest common denominator, our instinct to react to something instead of evaluating it. What appears to be a good business practice for media creates terrible rifts in our personal lives as wearing our most polarizing views on our sleeves becomes the new norm.
I wish I could say that I miss the days when religion and politics were taboo, but I have never lived in that world. I have had access to social media during every election that I have participated in. I am a part of the last generation that will know how to write in cursive, and the first generation that will have no concept of a private life. And while these election years act to destroy common ground through political discussions on Facebook that eventually devolve into one person comparing another person to Hitler, they also point out something very important. We have to start considering the effect that social media is having on our society. We have to start realizing that digital communication gives us all the power to publish, a power that has never been given to the masses before. There are so many beautiful implications and possibilities when everyone has the ability to practice their first amendment rights on such a large scale; but with great power comes great responsibility.
Comments
Post a Comment