I have been reading a book entitled, "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. In this book he talks about the "flattening of the word" and the forces that have caused this phenomenon and some of the consequences. The pervasiveness of the Internet is one of the forces that are shaping the world in which we live. The world is indeed a very flat place when you can be instantly connected to millions of people and share information at the speed of light. Indeed, this blog is a small example of how anyone with an Internet connection can instantly fire a shot heard around the world. It is now so easy to communicate with anyone, anywhere, anytime.
I was thinking about this new form of communication and assessing the pros and cons of being able to communicate and share information instantly. Certainly there is great benefit to be realized. Communication is much more than an exchange of data. True communication involves personal interaction. For many, the Internet is actually a major factor in the depersonalization of communication. Some even consider the Internet to be the cause of this change. However, just as violent video games are often blamed for an increase in violence, I believe that that too much of the shift away from personal communication is blamed on the Internet. Violent video games are more of a mirror of societal shifts than the cause of those shifts. The Internet facilitates depersonalization and merely reflects the overall changes in societal attitudes. In one sense, things are becoming less personal. Yet, at the same time things can get very personal very fast. One only need read a few of the political blogs to see this at its worst. George Bush (not my favorite president by a mile) is Hitler, Dahmer, Satan, and the village idiot all rolled into one. I am only using him as an obvious example.
Maybe I am just waxing nostalgic when I think about "civil discourse." Is it possible to disagree yet not be disagreeable? Given past history, it seems like the answer is a resounding "NO!" When was the last time that two people or two factions were able to sit down to discuss their differences without regressing to name calling? Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of the weak. Yet, that is where nearly every disagreement ends even before it starts. I remember Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Mr Franken may have made some valid arguments to support his political views and he probably sold plenty of books to his supporters. But, was he able to articulate his position clearly enough to win over support or even pique the interest of any but the most partisan of readers?
I am reminded of the old Saturday Night Live sketch of Point/Counterpoint. Most debates begin and end in much the same way as did that sketch. It does not seem to matter what the topic is. Inevitably, there is polarization, posturing and finally the poison is delivered. It is much easier to attack a person than a position. Is it any wonder that people are interacting from a distance? It is much easier to avoid confrontation and withdraw than to be derided and ridiculed.
It is truly refreshing to interact with someone who has different perspective and position if they can express themselves without resorting to personal attacks. Sadly, this type of free liberal discourse is becoming more of a rarity with each passing day. The Internet is just a tool that enables this to occur more smoothly and quickly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The internet does indeed allow people to fire a "shot heard 'round the world. But, with more and more people firing "shots", is anyone actually listening? It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest question" question.
As for the internet being the cause of depersonalized communication, I'm not sure it is a simple "yes" or "no". It may not be the root cause but I would argue it is an accelerant. The PERCEIVED anonymity tempts people to behave badly. People still have free will and thus a choice as to how to behave though. Thus the internet is not the cause but it does contribute.
Back to the question of who might be listening: I think this dovetails with the issue of civility you bring up. I don't think many people actually intend for their missives to change any minds. The example of Al Franken is a good one. Did he really think any die hard Limbaugh fans were going to be persuaded to see things his way with a title like "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". He's not stupid so I doubt it. However, did he expect a title like that would sell books to like minded people? You bet he did. This title, and I'm guessing the contents, is hardly "civil". But who, left or right, is going to buy a book titled "Why I Respectfully Disagree With Rush Limbaugh"? Some would but it doesn't quite have the same sizzle.
Is it possible to have a civil discussion any more? On some things with some people I suppose. But the farther apart you get on issues the harder that becomes. When some people start off with the premise that your position on an issue…say gay marriage…is a hate crime you should be thrown in jail for, well there isn't a whole lot of common ground to work with. The "best", or rather most extreme, example of this is the Islamic terrorists in the world today. What civil discourse can you have with someone who's starting position is: "Die, infidel". Try pulling out Robert's Rules on that guy and see what happens.
Another thing that makes "civil discourse" very difficult is the zero sum game of politics. If you and I disagree on whether The Beetles or Elvis were better, the outcome of the argument doesn't really have much of a consequence for either party. Even if I "lose" the argument, I can still listen to Elvis and you can still listen to the Beetles. Maybe we each gain a new appreciation of the respective artist - in that sense we both win - but no one really loses. However, if there is an argument about whether to have national health care or privatize social security, ultimately everyone has to live with the results of that argument. That raise the stakes and thus the emotion. Granted, giving into that emotion is not the best way to win an argument. But as a human being it is very hard to not fall into that trap. If there was a debate to determine whether the Beetles or Elvis' music would be outlawed, destroyed, and no one could ever listen to one of them again, that argument would be a lot less friendly. But that is what you have with much of political discourse. Somebody gets what they want and that is forced on someone else.
Post a Comment