Cyberpolarization

By Richard Reeve

The use of the cyber tools that have now become ubiquitous in our culture have led to some unexpected consequences.  In a fascinating essay on the political efficacy of, Elizabeth Kolbert writes:

“Why group polarization occurs is not entirely clear. According to one theory, when people engage in discussions with others who share their opinion they are apt to hear new arguments in favor of it, which prompts them to believe in it all the more strongly. According to a second theory, people are always trying to outdo one another; if everyone in a group agrees that men are jerks, then someone in the group is bound to argue that they’re assholes. In ordinary life, there are, of course, many opportunities to engage in group polarization—at the country club, in the union hall, at church or in synagogue, at the monthly meeting of the local feminist book club. Here again, though, Sunstein maintains, the Web takes things to a whole new level. (Group polarization, it should be noted, is the subject of another recent Sunstein book, “Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide.”) There is virtually no opinion an individual can hold that is so outlandish that he will not find other believers on the Web. “Views that would ordinarily dissolve, simply because of an absence of social support, can be found in large numbers on the Internet, even if they are understood to be exotic, indefensible, or bizarre in most communities,” Sunstein observes. Racists used to have to leave home to meet up with other racists (or Democrats with other Democrats, or Republicans with Republicans); now they need not even get dressed in order to “chat” with their ideological soul mates.

“It seems plain that the Internet is serving, for many, as a breeding group for extremism, precisely because like-minded people are deliberating with greater ease and frequency with one another,” Sunstein writes. He refers to this process as “cyberpolarization.” Read more: Cass Sunstein and political rumors on the internet

The challenge amidst the hyperbole, exaggeration, and slander that can erupt around any issue can feel overwhelming.  Yet, blanket dismissiveness is not an option.  While dialogue (here we refer to the classic Platonic sense of operating from a position where all parties are open to an as yet undisclosed conclusion) is not an option, it remains important for each public entity to sift through the jargon. Within the piles of dross, threads of valid criticism can be discovered.  At times when listening to the public discourse is seems as a culture we have forgotten the process of learning from criticism.  We are quick to deflect, point out the weaknesses in others, or change the subject. Really it’s quite simple.

When the shoe fits…wear it.

That being said, and as Kolbert points out, there’s an amazing pile of shoes that do not fit that make up the public cyber agora.