As of late, my favorite question to politically active Facebook-using friends is: "Do you block people you don't agree with?" Sometimes I'll make that question more specific. For example, I've ask gay friends if they've blocked homophobes. I've asked friends who are advocates for racial equality whether they block racists. The answer is mostly yes. This is understandable and perfectly human. Why would a person want to be regularly exposed to opinions that undermine their identity? Especially if it's so easy to hide them!
My Facebook is one of the most hateful spaces I occupy. There are high school friends posting things like "Oh great, it's White Guilt Day again" on MLK Day this past Monday. There are Freshman year acquaintances posting about how "bitches would trade a genuine dude for all those fake ass douche bags any day of the week." I know, that statement isn't political, but it left an unpleasant taste in my mouth nonetheless. My favorite might be: "Straight Pride. It's natural, it's worked for thousands of years, and you can make babies" with a picture of a happy couple in front of a blue and pink striped background. I read those posts and want to shake these people and maybe yell, but as of now I've resisted the urge to block them.
In Chapter 9, Nancy Fraser touches on this phenomena: "Some analysts fear that the type of participation that occurs on the web will result in increasing fragmentation, as people are able to seek out only that information with which they most agree and to avoid any meaningful interactions with people who have different perspectives" (p.256). I think of the 'blockers' as enclaved and 'confrontational posters' as oscillating (p. 245). Maybe the 'blockers' need time to establish their identity and be surrounded by likeminded members of their counterpublic before being exposed to the oscillating posters. However, most controversial posts I see on my Facebook aren't challenged. They are even praised, making the posters feel like "the public" rather than "a public" (p. 247).
I would argue that selective participation extends further than the web, although it certainly manifests itself obviously there. Take FOX News and CNN for example. Each media targets a specific political view. Both sides of the political spectrum can watch newscasters that reinforce their opinions. All the newscasters are pissed off just like them! But does the media shape opinions or reinforce already existing ones?
I don't know, that's for sure.
Emily, I think you bring up a great point about "selective participation." In chapter 9 of Rhetoric in Civic Life, we are told that "engaged argument with those whom they disagree is an essential element of a healthy counterpublic" (246); this argument helps the counterpublic avoid intolerance of others and an inability to accept criticism. I wrote in the margins of my book, "Doesn't this 'engaged argument' apply also to a dominant public?" I would think that "engaged argument" would be expected of *all* types of publics; we find so many examples which depict dominant publics in the wrong (such as the slave-owning dominant public in early American history).
ReplyDeleteBut what counts as engaged argument? For one thing, perhaps *rationality* plays a big part. As one of my professors once said, "The fact that you 'like' or 'dislike' a text only tells me that you can form an opinion; it doesn't tell me you are capable of critical discussion." I don't blame your Facebook friends from blocking certain people--especially if those other people seem to be in the market for mud-slinging and not a sharing of views substantiated by valid claims (*note: "valid" is NOT synonymous with "accurate" or "true").
Then again, blocking those people on Facebook does have the potential of an isolating effect or "fragmentation." So does the responsibility fall on a public to make itself known (through rational, engaged debate) to other publics? Or should a public seek out views which might contradict its own--a sort of self-regulatory checks and balances system? Nancy Fraser brings this issue up as well: "Here we are again approaching the issue of accountability. What institutional arrangements best ensure the accountability of democratic decision-making bodies (strong publics) to *their* (external, weak...) publics?" (76).
Selective engagement and selective exposure... sound like partners in crime. I block people or choose not to subject myself to bloviation because I honestly just don't have the tolerance you seem to have. I know those people exist (and I know they think what they say has validity) but my patience wears thin as discussions often devolve into screaming matches about who's right. I don't need daily exposure to remind myself of that.
ReplyDeleteI want to think the whole reasoning/rational thing has a direct correlation with how engaged one is in any given public, I do. I had a friend who absolutely believed that if you swallow gum, it stays in your stomach for seven years - I eventually couldn't handle how often she passed off speculation and old wives' tales as "scientific evidence". I couldn't trust her judgement of relevant facts (no, Pope Benedict was not the actor that played Emperor Palpatine), and therefore her credibility in general was questionable.
I think we need to be aware of how this approach to engagement can affect, say for instance, the vaccination debate. Or the discussion of finding the origin of autism. At what point do we leave the drivel in the dust and start leading more critically informed lives?