Energy vs. Civility

A diversity-vs.-participation tradeoff?  Well, maybe.  I really like the term "polarization entrepreneurs," but I'm not really sure that the issue is the breadth of deliberation.  In fact, I think that in many cases, interacting with those with whom we disagree can deepen division, rather than bridge gaps.  My own experience is that being called names tends to make me want to dig in my heels and intensify my position, while a more reasonable approach often leaves me more willing to consider alternative views.  I don't think that this characteristic is particularly unusual on my part, as people were observing millennia ago that a mild reply turneth aside wrath, while grievous words stir up anger.  This suggests the possibility that polarization comes not just from people congregating in like-minded groups, but also from the lack of civility, though my own experience suggests that the two phenomena feed on one another:  Nasty language and name-calling tend to encourage people to sort themselves into like-minded groups, partly because nasty language is off-putting and partly because people who expect to receive nasty attacks want a group of like-minded folks who will back them up when that happens.

Mark Penn (I'm reviewing his book for the Post, so it's much on my mind at the moment) notes that the punditocracy is more divided than the populace for this very reason:  "The myth that America is hopelessly 'polarized' gets perpetuated because in Washington D.C. -- where most of the pundits are writing from -- everyone has to choose sides to survive."

So the increased polarization and lack of civility we're seeing in the blogosphere may be an example of amateur pundits imitating the professionals, and sorting themselves into teams for mutual defense the way inmates in prison, or teenagers in junior high, do.  And certain terms of uncivil language become shibboleths, or gang colors:  "Rethuglican," "Leftard," etc.

Some pressures probably incline the blogosphere to carry this to greater lengths:  Newspapers and magazines presumably care at least a little about not narrowing their audience too much -- conservatives who don't like being called "Rethuglicans" are still worth having as readers if they help to sell car ads.  Bloggers don't face such pressure to bring their work under an overarching brand.  And professional pundits meet each other face to face at times, and are always grateful for book-plugs and related logrolling, also things that most bloggers don't deal with. 

Of course, that's not always bad:  You mention in Infotopia that Trent Lott's "genuinely scandalous" statements about the missed opportunity of a Strom Thurmond presidency "were ignored -- except on the blogosphere."  Lott made those remarks in a room full of reporters, whose failure to report them was probably driven in part by personal familiarity -- and perhaps a desire for future access -- two things that bloggers are not similarly inhibited by.

That said, I've noticed a number of cross-blogospheric efforts:  The opposition to FEC regulation of bloggers, or support for the Tripoli Six, for example, produced much cooperation among bloggers of different political persuasion, and I was invited to the YearlyKos conference this year and was sorry I wasn't able to go.  (And we've had a touch of friendly rivalry on environmental goals, too.)

So "polarization entrepreneurs" do try to stir up rivalry, and they often succeed.  But because -- as I mentioned below -- politics are more fragmented than polarized, people can often find things to agree on across the Red/Blue divide.  In fact, some cynics may suspect that the Red/Blue divide is, at least in part, an effort to prevent people from finding things to agree on that might imperil current political coalitions.  Despite the current degree of polarization -- and incivility -- I think that the long-term impact of the blogosphere will be to enable communities of interest that overlap, rather than hugging opposite sides of a chasm.  I also think -- and I've written about it elsewhere -- that there's an upside to the sorting you describe:  Unlike email lists that can be overrun by trolls, the blogosphere tends to route around idiots.  I regard that as a virtue, too.   Am I overoptimistic?

Comments

[Roach]

There are two important phenomena at work, though.

One, we learn at a top university setting to speak in measured, precise ways and avoid ad hominems. Outside of ethnocentric study programs, this tends to make one a better debater and learn when one is actually losing or winning or responding properly to opponents' points.

Second, anyone, even the moderately educated, can blog. This leads to a strange tone on the blogs of the half-educated: stupid name-calling, too-quick appeals to arguments from authority, and just general illogic and stupidity.

I'm not sure it was any worse than anywhere else. Americans still have strong consensus ona wide range of issues, not least of which is a near-universal rejection of the real hallmark of deadly polarization: political violence.

[Erasmussimo]

Yes, Mr. Reynolds, I think you are overoptimistic. The killer problem that renders incivility so common is captured in the aphorism "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Most of us (me too!) operate in anonymity, which removes many of the social inhibitions. Even when people post by name, the absence of body language and vocal intonation tend to increase the temperature of discussions. We've known about this problem since the very earliest bulletin board systems got rolling back in the early 80s. Yet in 25 years we've made no progress in solving it.

Perhaps the solution lies in setting up discussion areas in which nobody is anonymous. You can't even read the postings unless you've revealed your identity. Sort of like a mutual disarmament. May I suggest that you consider this as a policy for this blog? All the main contributors are (nonymous? a-anonymous?) Why not impose the same constraint upon readers and commentators? Indeed, perhaps it would be better to require each person to post adequate self-description (age, gender, occupation, education, pets, etc) Perhaps that would elevate the tone of the discussion.

[curtisstrong]

Eras and Roach,

It's been a while. Good to see you're still doing a bit of blogging yourself.

It seems that incivility is not necessarily in any way avoidable in a forum such as a blog. Even if you knew my identity, the detached characteristic of blogging makes it unlikely that you would restrain yourself when I say something that makes you angry (perhaps you both would, but there are quite a few people out there who would not...let's be honest).

How does something like that get changed? Even LAK, who is a person with a lot of education, admittedly uses (or used?) this very blog for something akin to "letting off steam."

I think, then, that the blogosphere is often used by people for different reasons. LAK will use it to insult Roach as much as possible, while Roach uses it to argue his theories. Eras, I think you seem to use the blog to test your ideas and come into contact with other people's views, while I'd characterize myself as somewhere between those last two examples (by the way, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this).

In any case, to avoid incivility on the blogosphere seems an incredibly daunting, if not impossible, task due to the dynamics created not only through the online, detached atmosphere, but also because of the different personalities and goals involved in this type of forum.

In addition, you have to wonder about the (general) type of people who blog in the first place. These are people who are 1) interested in the topic (in this case, politics), and 2) willing and outgoing enough to write their opinions for others to read and comment on. I may be wrong on this, but I think that type of person may be more likely to have strong feelings about something related to the subject matter, and as a result, may be more likely to use harsher words than some other people would.

Whether or not all of this leads to greater polarization, and therefore, greater political involvement seems rational, but I wonder,

Why aren't there any strong polorization gurus out there for the "middle ground," if that is, in fact, better for society? Is it that we simply feel better when there is an enemy to fight against? Is that a characteristic of the human condition? Or is the middle ground just a terrible place to be?

[Erasmussimo]

Good points, Mr. Strong. It's funny, but I don't consider myself a leftist even though I end up disagreeing with lots of right-wing people. I used to spend a lot of time on Daily Kos, and I often disputed some of the more radical claims made there. Overall, my political stance is definitely "independent" in that I do not subscribe to the great majority of the leftist agenda -- only a goodly portion of it. I am very much a believer in the "radical middle" concept and would like nothing more than to drag both sides into a less polarized approach.

You're absolutely right in the observation that there's a selection effect in favor of the more passionate believers, which in turn seems to suggest that discussions on blogs are pointless -- nobody will ever learn anything from anybody else. Still, I have learned some things in my years participating in discussions, and while the learning process was sometimes embarrassing, those moments of realization that I was wrong remain a powerful motivation to continue.

There's no doubt in my mind that a great many of the commentators on blogs are out to prove their manhood rather than develop it. But there remain a significant number of serious people willing to discuss the fine points. I have found only a few blogs where I could really plunge into meaty discussions. Obsidian Wings is one such blog. On too many blogs, as soon as we start digging into the details, interest wanes. {Sigh}.