I recently read Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, by David Aaronovitch. Aaronovitch attributes at least some of the power of conspiracy theories to group polarization, i.e., the tendency of people to form more extreme views when they are in a more or less like-minded group.
It occurs to me that group polarization could explain a lot more than that, in the course of human events – and especially nowadays, when media outlets are so market-segmented that people often are routinely exposed to those that represent their own politics rather than a shared consensus; and when people also tend to seek like-minded Internet discussion forums. It may be this explains, at least in part, the polarization of politics in America in the past couple of decades.
Is there any solution?
I’ve always heard it described as balkanization, then a polarization as each enclave has no tolerant members or opponents within their ranks to moderate opinions.
However, where you see polarization, another may see an opportunity to give voice to a view historically unpopular or untenable. It might not be so much polarization as a diversity of opinions, a plethora of ideas that can now be discussed with a tractable audience. Better that we have a thousand different minds thinking a thousand different thoughts than all be on the same page.
A difference of opinion - even polarized - seems fine to me, as long as one person is not trying to force their opinion upon another. And that to me is the root of this problem: you describe polarization as a problem in the sociopolitical arena, the largest area in life where one group is coercing another group. Get rid of the point of coercion and it oftentimes doesn’t matter what another group of people think.
Of course some differences of opinions need to be challenged, and some extreme views should be contested. I know this sounds too much like “I know pornography when I see it”, but it can’t be cut and dried. Polarized views that call for violence against others, or in some way seek to damage someone’s life, liberty, or property should be contested. Otherwise, leave one free to live how they wish, and think whatever you want.
It does in the sociopolitical arena – because everybody gets to vote. Not a direct form of coercion, perhaps, but we all have to live with the results.
I wonder if the period from the late 40s until the late 70s will be the only time that the citizens of the United States got their news from the same small number of sources. It used to be that the nightly news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC were the source of up to date coverage of important issues. We all had our local papers and local radio stations, but the whole nation sat down together to watch the struggle for civil rights, reports from the battlefields of the Vietnam War, and the gradual unfolding of Watergate.
Every news source has bias, but the news depts of the TV networks saw themselves as a public service. They weren’t trying to make big profits by sensationalizing the news, nor did they see themselves as an agent of one political party.
Everyone in the Unites States saw the fire hoses turned on demonstrators, and the shared revulsion people felt turned the tide of public opinion. These days each network would have covered it from the angle that supported their viewers pre-existing beliefs.
Having a wide variety of news sources is a great thing, but we don’t get the benefit if people just listen to one of them. We may never again be able to do something like putting a man on the moon, because we no longer have the ability to build a broad, national consensus.
I think teevee news is just as closely held today, but a lot less dedicated to serving the public. So people today can’t possibly be as well informed from tv alone as they could have been years ago.
I also believe that the best informed people are going to be those who continue to get their news as text - whether via internet, magazines or papers. They’re going to be able to get more depth, discussion, and diversity of views.
IMO, phenomena like teabaggers are the result of an information underclass becoming proud of its simple and limited views, because they do not view things like intelligence and education as unambiguously good, and resent those who have it as a clique of bullshit-slinging elitists.
For this reason any many others, I agree with Dan that the day of broad national consensus is over. It would take a grave and widespread crisis indeed to reunite us.
9/11 united us, but that unity didn’t last long.
We have an economic crisis now; it doesn’t seem to be uniting us.