Humanity, Political Polarization, and Memes
Why the more we argue, the farther apart we get.
There has been a lot of cultural discussion about political polarization in the past several years, with the most recent presidential election adding much fuel to that fire. Ideas like “crossing the aisle,” “bipartisanship,” or “common decency” seem like relics of a simpler past. Whether we are more polarized today than we have ever been, I don’t know. But it sure feels that way. I’d like to use this space to highlight one troubling aspect of this problem that I have been brooding on for a while. Political memes.
In case you don’t know what they are, I’ve provided two political memes below as illustrative examples. The first one is Meme A which was produced by Group A. The second is Meme B which was produced by Group B (I’m not very creative). What follows are my opinions on some of the more insidious aspects of these types of memes and my thoughts on moving forward.
Meme A contains a picture of a Native American with text that reads: “So you’re against immigration? Splendid! When do you leave?”
Meme B contains a picture of a sarcastic looking Willy Wonka and the accompanying text: “Tell me again how spending $4.5 billion to bring Syrians here is better than spending $4.5 billion to house every homeless vet.”
Members of Group A understand the rationale behind Meme A. Within Meme A is an implied logic that white people immigrated to this country when Native Americans were already here, therefore it is irrational to be a white person and anti-immigration because we are descendants of immigrants. Likewise, members of Group B understand the rationale behind Meme B. It doesn’t make financial sense to spend our money on refugees when we have worthy populations at home who are not receiving enough support.
The problem, as I see it, is that these are one-way (i.e. within group only) conversations. Meme A resonates with people in Group A and, therefore, strengthens the collective values of Group A. It also highlights important ways that Group A is morally superior to Group B. Group B is amoral because they are xenophobic, ignorant of their own history, and promote restrictions on immigration for those who are suffering.
The same can be said of Group B whose respective meme resonates with group B’s members and, thereby, strengthens the collective values. As a result, Group B’s identity as morally superior than Group A becomes more solidified. “How could they care about outsiders when we don’t adequately provide for those at home?” “Does duty to our service members not matter at all?”
In addition to reaffirming the righteousness of these respective groups, members of Group A and Group B also move farther away from common ground. Any member of Group B can look at Meme A and instantly see that the values and beliefs of their group are being misrepresented and oversimplified in the meme, and rightfully so. The same is true of members of Group A when looking at Meme B. To members of the opposing groups, these logical flaws are obvious. And since there is limited between-group discussion aimed at closing this gap in understanding, ignorance of their opponents’ experiences adds one more tool they can use to highlight just how out of touch members of the opposing group are. The end result is that both groups are more solidified in their beliefs and they are farther apart from each other ideologically than they were before their respective memes were created.
In short, because memes of this type always unfairly represent the opinions they are criticizing (how could they not with so little space?), they will always be dismissed by members of the group being criticized. Further, this unfair representation unifies the criticized group against the criticizing group even more than it already was because of the unfair representation.
In the end, the ideological distance between these groups is larger than it was before.
The end result is a large empathy gap between Group A and Group B. There is no attempt at understanding the opposing opinion because they already know what’s wrong with the opposing group. No goal of meeting half way because the moral superiority of their own group is obvious. There is no empathy or recognition of shared humanness that members of Group A and Group B have for one another. Without this, they will continue to retreat into their ideological enclaves until there is no between-group agreement on anything.
It is important to note that I’m not arguing that the pattern described is caused by memes themselves. Memes of this type are certainly not the culprit, they just provide a useful example. This is what humans do and have done since we could reasonably be called human. Humans are group animals and, as such, are incredibly adept at recognizing and using symbols to signify group membership and demonize others. Memes are an extension of this into the modern world. But it’s not just memes.
Think about this next time you are commenting on how crazy people on the opposite side of the political spectrum are, when you write your next snarky Facebook post or Tweet, or when you sit down at the dinner table with that crazy family member who always ruins Thanksgiving. If your goal is increased understanding and reduced polarization, then empathy is the way forward. Reach out and truly try and understand their point of view. Ask them.
Remember also, that there is no shame in group membership or being driven crazy by your ideological nemeses. In situations like these the natural thing to do is to be human, signal your group membership by demonizing an out group, all with the end result of pushing everyone farther apart. This is easy, especially when someone makes a comment that disagrees with your cherished values. I would counsel you to resist this urge, if possible, and try the unnatural thing.
The unnatural and harder thing is to take a step back from your need to be heard and to have your opinion validated. Ask to be welcomed into another’s world. Ask to be taught. Try to understand what their everyday experiences are and how they came to hold opinions so diametrically opposed to your own. Let go of any expectation that they will reciprocate. And just listen. This is the hard thing. Do the harder thing. You might be surprised by the results.