Over on Facebook, my friend Josh Wilner lamented about this year’s US Presidential race, and the divide it’s caused because of the rhetoric being used as propaganda?by certain party “leaders”.
Josh’s biggest concern, if you like, was summed up with these words:
The 2016 election will be remembered by many as the year they lost friendships. That is not as tongue-in-cheek or snarky as it sounds either. In some cases it is a sad commentary on our tribalism and need for everyone to agree with us.
As someone who found myself unfriending a few people over their very far-right wing beliefs during the candidate debates (even though I’m not in the US), Josh’s words resonated deeply.
Although he does clarify further in his update that “significant differences can be overcome as long as they don’t include bigotry, racism, and anti-semitic views”, his update still highlights how we seem to have arrived at a place of “you’re either with me or against me”.
And it never used to be like this – at least, not visibly so.
The Growing Tribalism of Online Friendships
Earlier this year, I wrote a post about it being your own fault if you got pregnant by having sex in the ear. While it was a flippant title, the topic itself was something that relates to Josh’s update about tribalism.
The post shared a study from the Pew Research?Center, entitled Social Media and the Spiral of Silence. This was a research paper that showed social media had actually hindered our freedom of thinking, as opposed to encouraging it.
An example used was the Edward Snowden leaks, and how people were discussing that (or not) on the likes of Facebook.
From the study, some important stats were shared:
- 86% of Americans were happy to talk about Snowden offline, but only 42% of Facebook and Twitter users were happy to talk about him on these respective channels.
- Three times as many people were happy to discuss the Snowden case both offline and online, if they felt the others ?in the room? agreed with their point of view.
Now, while the first bullet point may suggest Americans were weary of discussing the Snowden case because the felt Big Brother was watching, it’s the second statistic that ties in with the whole tribalism aspect.
Regardless of the medium – online or offline – it still meant three times as many people would offer an opinion if it tied into the thinking on display.
That essentially means three times as few people no longer have an opinion, unless it’s one that is supported by everyone else or will put them in the spotlight in a way that doesn’t lead to conflict.
Because, as Josh mentions over on Facebook, without the tribe and the agreement of others, a differing opinion isn’t heard. Which leads to unfriending and, by association, tunnel vision.
The Good Old Days of Fights and Beer
I remember when I was in my mid-twenties, and I’d play both soccer and rugby for local teams back in the UK.
Now, these weren’t high-quality sports teams – far from it. Instead, it was the Sunday League variety where being able to run at least five minutes meant you were fit enough to play.
More often than not, they were teams made up of regulars of various bars around the town I was living in, and – as such – fistfights would regularly occur during games.
These would come about due to dirty tackles, elbows to the head, or simply ongoing match banter that went too far with the insults. Cue a punch up, often involving most of the players.
The referee would interject, the players in question would be punished, and the game would continue. Sometimes, the fight might continue on the sidelines, until the game was finally over.
But here’s the thing.
Once the game was finished, and everyone was showered and relaxing in the bar, violence and disagreement was forgotten. Hands were shaken, compliments on a win were given, and beers were shared.
Laughter replaced anger, friendship replaced [temporary] hate. All was good in the world again.
Anger is Not Always Hate
Now.
I’m not naive enough to think we can do the same with online discourse and disagreement (for one, the lack of a physical bar is an immediate stumbling block).
But do we really have to be in the with or against camp from the off? Can’t we take a step back, and analyze someone’s point of view before we condemn then as idiots or whatever else we’re calling each other?
Can’t we take a step back, and analyze someone’s point of view before we condemn then as idiots or whatever else we’re calling each other?
[clickToTweet tweet=”Taking a ‘with me or against me’ mindset is about as helpful as a chocolate fire guard. ” quote=”Taking a ‘with me or against me’ mindset is about as helpful as a chocolate fire guard. ” theme=”style4″]
I’m no fan of Donald Trump, and I do believe that any supporters of his that are behind his more right-wing and divisive statements are probably folks I don’t want to be associated with.
But, instead of discounting all Trump supporters as mindless idiots, have a read of this BBC piece, that offers an excellent overview of why normal, disenchanted Americans are voting for him.
These supporters have arrived at their decision for reasons that don’t include hate and ignorance, but sadness and anger at how the preceding governments have let them down.
But, of course, for many people, the fact they’re going to vote for Trump immediately relegates them to mindless idiots.
And, from the other side of the fence, the same can be said for folks voting for Clinton and the responses they get from Trump supporters. And round and around we go…
Break Down the Tribes
Look, I get it – we all do. The world is kinda shitty right now, and it’s not clear who, if anyone, has the best solution to fix it.
But putting up walls between us because we disagree on something doesn’t solve anything. Instead, it simply plays into the hands of those who’d divide us, and dilutes the change we could impact if we worked together on common ground.
While that might give you a short burst of satisfaction – “I showed him!” – it does far more damage in the long run than the power glow it gives you in the immediate future.
And it’s not only us who suffer but our kids and the generations they’ll be responsible for after them.
And that’s not a happy outlook whatever way you view it.
So let’s make a deal. Let’s take a pause, breathe, analyze and consider before making snap judgments.
Let’s understand why others feel a certain way, and either agree to disagree or acknowledge that they may have a point after all. One that isn’t blunted by ignorance and shortsightedness.
It may?not happen overnight. It may not happen in our lifetime.
But isn’t it worth aiming for, so that at some point in the future, we lose the with or against us mindset, and use differences of opinion to form new, accepting ones?
I know I’m going to try better – you in?