I understand team rivalries. I grew up in Michigan where you are either for U of M or MSU – there is no in between. But, despite what the media and perhaps your neighbors or Facebook friends would have you believe, politics is not a team rivalry. It is not simply Red vs. Blue.
If one is really going to take a political position, one must understand more than what color their team wears. One must delve into the issues, understand their history, their facts and falsities, and the consequences both short and long term of any action or proposed action taken in regard to those issues.
What true understanding requires is that one touch the humanity and not just the uniform worn by someone who represents a different side on an issue. One effective way for individuals to recognize their shared humanity despite policy or political differences is to actually interact with one another. That is what happens when people have a real conversation.
A conversation is “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.” The key word here is “exchanged”; the conversants share and exchange ideas. They are not in it to win, but to understand the ideas of another and to broaden their own perspective about that person or an issue or whatever might be the topic of the conversation. A conversation is not simply a game between two different teams in which the players’ primary goal is to win, not to learn.
I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have such real conversations on Facebook. I have followed many and participated in a few Facebook “conversations” and have yet to see or experience one in which there was actually an exchange in the sense of sharing and listening and actually considering one another’s ideas as a springboard to new ideas and deeper understandings.
No matter how civil the discussion (“I understand what you are saying, but….”) they all really go something like this: The initial Poster presents something which is open to more than one viewpoint but which takes or at least leans to one view only which is the view in which the Poster believes. There will be some responses in the form of “likes” or similar acceptance of the view presented. This of course satisfies the addictive sugar of Facebook for the Poster. Eventually someone will either disagree or point out additional or contrary opinions or facts, all of which are inconvenient for the Poster and those aligned with the Poster.
While one might call that an exchange of ideas, it is not. It is a presentation by the other team. An exchange requires more than presentation. It requires an acceptance (though not necessarily an adoption) of the other side’s presentation. It requires a desire to understand the contrary or inconvenient presentations.
That exchange does not exist on Facebook. Rather, once inconvenient information is presented the “conversation” becomes not one of exchange and sharing but one of each side trying to win their point. People with inconvenient information for that point are sometimes ignored, sometimes deleted, and often called names that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (things like “you must be a nut job”; “only an idiot would post that”; “no one cares what you think”; “you should get your information from [my team’s news] since [your team’s sources] just lie”; “your offerings are both wrong and worthless”; and much worse).
The “conversation” becomes simply about showing the other participants how right one’s comments are, as well as collecting those “likes.” It is about winning.
A real conversation, rather than devolving into deaf assertions of righteousness of each side, grows into a new and shared understanding. How does that happen and why is it impossible on Facebook or similar impersonal social media venues?
When we meet face to face we are looking at another person, not some posted words on a page. Recognizing our shared humanity provides the participants with some humility. In social media posts, even when many posters are involved in a conversation, each poster is really only talking to him or herself. The addictive “likes” encourage each poster to repost essentially the same view over and over. Those “likes” solidify the self-righteousness and, like cheerleaders at an athletic contest, encourage each poster to try even harder to win. There really is no reward for listening on Facebook because the venue obliterates the shared humanity that is essential to any real conversation in which ideas are actually exchanged, thought about, and discussed.
Humanity is “a virtue associated with basic ethics of altruism derived from the human condition. It also symbolizes human love and compassion towards each other.” If the humanity of conversants is obscured, the compassion necessary to respect and listen to those involved in a “conversation” is also obscured. Rather than a time of sharing and understanding the “conversation” becomes a contest where participants choose their teams and their sides; it becomes about winning and perhaps also about demolishing the opponent.
It is not just social media that is obscuring humanity with the result of more animosity and hatred. Indeed, the team spirit of winning at any cost seems to have taken over far too many of our once more human interactions. Politics: red or blue and beat up (literally or figuratively) the opposing team. Identity politics: the identity group must demolish all other groups (opposing teams) in order to win. Life style: no tolerance for anything different because the favored life style must win against all others. Even history: its complexities and nuances are no longer allowed as opposing viewpoints each must win rather than use the complexities to elucidate and accept varying views.
I was thinking about the ways that people really help others who are struggling in some way. Every truly effective help that I can think of involves the helper reaching out and touching the shared humanity of the one being helped. There is a difference between that and drive by “help” that sees some problem “over there” with this or that identity group or cause and simply throws money or support at it. That is not that different from throwing “likes” at a Facebook post.
Such drive by help fails to stop and recognize the humanity of the other. It is that kind of help that leaves those being “helped” demeaned and dependent. It does not see those being helped as equal in their humanity. Causes and drive by help might be based on a positive idea, but they do nothing.
What does help, what does lead to productive conversations as well as productive betterment of society requires a recognition of everyone’s shared humanity. That of course requires both work and humility. The humility of accepting that we each are no better than the other. Yes, different skills, different places in life, different minds, different in every aspect of our individuality, but at the same time no better than others. That is our humanity.
And it takes work. It is easy to post something on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed. It is harder to open one’s mind and really listen to someone who does not think as you do. It is easy to drive by and throw money or support to a cause; it is much harder to do the actual work to improve a situation or move society forward.
In the end, we can work to win, or we can work to find our shared
humanity. Elections may be about who
wins, but the underlying policies, like life itself, must be recognized as far
more complex than just some team rivalry.
Life is far more than a team
sport and those who are not us are not our opponents against whom we must win.
No comments:
Post a Comment