Q: Does Social Media Prevent Civil Discourse?
Right after our first post at The Optic went online, we got a great question on Twitter and thought it would be fitting to answer it in our first joint article:
Haley: My immediate response is, “Yes, there has to be a way.” For those of you who may not have heard this term before, “civil discourse” refers to polite, respectful conversation, usually around political or social issues. It’s great that Mr. Rund asked us this question, since Hannah and I have noticed a general lack of civil discourse, inspiring us to begin The Optic in the first place. Again, if politics is about the kind of life we want to have together — if politics is about creating the kind of society we want to live in — it is both our duty and honor to discuss it together. It is through real, difficult, political conversations that we learn about other people. We learn to appreciate their worldview, to understand why that might lead them to different conclusions, to care for others and the groups they belong to, and to sacrifice and compromise some of our desires to make life better for others. This is the essence of civil discourse, caring about others enough to truly listen to what they have to say.
However, we know this is not easy, and in his question above, Mr. Rund highlights a key issue — “today’s overly sensitive social networked society.” As it becomes easier and easier to respond quickly to tough issues without thinking through the full implications, unintentionally harmful language can be used. (I’m thinking of microaggressions — slight turns of phrase that make minority groups feel more marginalized, even though the speaker didn’t mean to.) These kinds of harmful language can be detrimental because I am less likely to respond civilly when I am offended, and as emotion enshrouds the conversation, it becomes increasingly harder to work together towards a common solution. At the same time, social media provides a key opportunity to open political conversations. Many of my friends who weren’t previously politically active find it easier to engage through mediums like Twitter or Snapchat. In fact, my international politics class this semester has a hashtag that we use to tweet interesting articles (#IPMES, if anyone is interested). The difficulty in civil discourse is figuring out how to bridge the difference between the information, analysis, and opinions we find and the heated conversations that often follow.
Hannah: My instinct is to agree with Haley, but only to a certain extent. Civil discourse is most present in my life when I’m at practice with my Ethics Bowl team. Ethics Bowl is an activity where a team of 10 students meets up to discuss cases on tough issues (we’ve had cases on assisted suicide, gay marriage, in vitro fertilization funding, etc.) and tries to come up with a solution with some ethical backing. One of our main goals is to do this civilly. We even presented at a conference on bringing civil discourse back to society — in an ideal world, we would be masters. Tensions would never run high. But here’s the thing — we’re also humans. We have feelings and egos and different knowledge about different things. So, as much as we try to get to a civil place — and we do get close — it’s not always possible, and I have a few ideas as to why. I believe that civil discourse is based on two things: for civil discourse to work, the people engaging in it first have to let go of their egos. If people aren’t willing to accept the idea that they may be wrong, the conversation isn’t going to go anywhere. Second, they have to consider new perspectives that may be right, or more right than their original perspective was.
With these two conditions, civil discourse isn’t an instinct, but rather an intention. Unless you have a very specific, peaceful type of personality, you’re probably not going to go to tension-smoothing as your first step. To go back to Mr. Rund’s question, then, let’s bring social media into the equation on top of tensions that could already be running high. When I think of online discussion, my thoughts go first to comments on news articles and then to Twitter — as the (kind of) old saying goes, “don’t read the comments.” The quick and easy nature of the internet makes it very difficult to take a step back and consider another perspective on whatever the post or article is talking about. The comments, then, are often short, angry bursts of unedited opinion, not necessarily logic. They’re straight emotion. As Haley mentioned, it’s more difficult to be civil when emotion comes into play, especially when the ability to have other people recognize and validate (or invalidate) your emotions is available at your fingertips.
All in all, not every perspective is going to be logical. Most people have at least one opinion that they’re going to hold just because that’s what they feel, not necessarily because they’ve thought through the benefits and drawbacks of an alternative perspective. In these cases, civil discourse might not be possible, but politeness is. Discourse by its very nature involves an exchange of ideas and perspectives, and if there isn’t substance behind a perspective, it can be hard to engage. However, it’s always possible to respect your fellow humans.
Haley: Hannah’s point about being willing to accept being wrong is essential. In his classic defense of freedom of speech On Liberty, John Stuart Mill points out that refusing to hear another’s perspective sends the message that you must be completely right. He says that even horrible ideas, or ideas you simply disagree with, have something to teach you, even if it is only how to bolster your own argument [5]. Being willing to learn from people around you makes you a better listener, improving the general quality of conversation. Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt furthers this argument in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. He says people respond more positively, and are more likely to change their opinions, when their emotions and sense of comfort are positively addressed [6]. Relying on pure reason looks to be less effective than we sometimes wish it were. All that to say, not only does accepting you may be wrong foster humility, it may actually help you persuade others to accept your conclusions.
This is one area of civil discourse where social media can actually play a significant role. One of the first examples that comes to my mind is Humans of New York (HONY). In November 2010, a man named Brandon Stanton began photographing residents of New York City, and along the way asked them about their lives, including short stories with their pictures [7]. The project has exploded, boasting more than 10 million followers on social media of all kinds. This blog honestly shares stories of joy, heartbreak, and pain, exposing its followers to the beauty and tragedy of being a human in New York. It has no political agenda, but the stories sure do make you think about structural difficulties people face daily. One of the most remarkable aspects of HONY is the comment section — while people share opinions and sometimes get heated, comments are generally encouraging, personal AND political, with depth. Instances like these remind me that civil discourse isn’t simply about being logical, pushing feelings to the side. There is so much room for stories, passion for various issues, and even energy and emotion. Civil discourse is not bland! It takes the passion of all parties involved and respects it, values it, and really listens to what new perspectives it could bring.
In theory, this is all fine and good, but politics is also practical. As much as we can “agree to disagree,” we still have to enact policy that runs the country and affects our daily lives. I believe this is why politics is often so heated — because it’s so tangible. I’m fine with your ideas being different than mine, but when your practices are different, I can no longer ignore it. This makes policy decisions immensely difficult for our elected officials, and gives me perspective when I’m tempted to be angry at politicians who don’t work together. We have to take one more step than being willing to be wrong — we have to be willing to be uncomfortable. For parts of our lives to be potentially shifted as we work towards policy solutions. To accept that what someone else thinks is best might be difficult for me, and I can disagree, but might need to live it anyway. I’m not any better at this than any of the rest of us, but if we want our political system to work, we have to build civil discourse by living even the policy we disagree with. Civil discourse is key in theoretical conversations, and frees us to live it practically.
Hannah: I’d make one small change to Haley’s position on living in policy that makes us uncomfortable. Even though we sometimes have to live in it, we also have to work to make our voices heard if we want it to be changed. This goes back to the part of Mr. Rund’s question that mentions an overly sensitive social networked society. I think that there are two parts to what he’s getting at here — the apparent advent of political correctness combined with an explosion of social media. The first is an argument that I hear a lot — that being “politically correct” is coddling today’s youth and that it isn’t leading to any sort of productive change, and my opinions on it can be summed up pretty succinctly in this article [1] from Brandeis University professor Robert Kuttner. Basically, some of what we’re calling political correctness is just an excuse to not say what we really mean, but a lot (most, I’d argue) is in the context of social and economic injustices that we should have dealt with a long time ago. However, that doesn’t mean that we should restrict the use of certain words by law — as Kuttner points out, this would mirror a 1984-type Thought Police, and that’s not the goal. No one is being restricted from using words, but on the flip side, no one is being restricted from calling people out when they use them, either. And this gets to the second piece of Mr. Rund’s question, about society being “socially networked.” Some of the most dangerous aspects of the discussion over what should and should not be offensive become clear online. Just earlier this month, for instance, a woman posted an account of her street harassment online and was subsequently harassed even further. You can read her original post on Facebook [2], and read some of the comments that the woman received on a website that she received to document them [3]. When people are told that they can’t do or say certain things, they get angry, and this is a classic example. Person tells group that they shouldn’t do something offensive, group fires back with further offense. In the online sphere, it gets to the point of harassment and threats of violence, as documented by a study from the Pew Research Center [4]. This goes further than people having their feelings hurt — when backlash against political correctness goes too far, people fear for their lives.
And this is why civil discourse is possible, important, and necessary, even outside of the political sphere. If online commenters in our “overly sensitive socially networked society” had made use of civil discourse, there could have been an educated discussion on the issues. What is it about the catcalling that made her uncomfortable? Is there a way to compliment a person without the fear of assault? Often, the people who are advocating for political correctness are sick of having to answer these questions, especially when they’re asked with an air of contempt. But if we don’t have civil discourse, our arguments will whiz right past each other, without any hope for consensus or solutions. Civil discourse is hard, and it’s brave. You have to let go of your own ego and acknowledge that the person or people that you’re talking to may have a very different perspective on the issue. It’s hard to ask both sides to be civil, but it’s all we can do.
Sources
2. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153826035400406&set=p.10153826035400406&type=3&theater
3. http://www.christensinbox.com/
4. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment
5. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. Originally published 1859.
6. Jonathon Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Published 2012.
7. http://www.humansofnewyork.com. You can also follow the blog on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and more
