By Kevin Currie-Knight
___
What follows is the primary a part of three essays on the developments of accelerating political and cultural polarization in addition to our diminishing willingness to tolerate opposing concepts. In a way, these are an outgrowth of earlier ideas I’ve had about toleration and its situations. What’s toleration? What does it demand from each tolerators and tolerated? What situations can result in its decline or its renewal? Not surprisingly, some adjustments in polarization and declining toleration contain the norms of social media. However what norms particularly? Right here, I’ll sketch three norms within the social media age that I believe have an effect on our more and more tense political attitudes towards each other: how we share, how we care, and the way we do.
“Good fences make for good neighbors.” The saying is previous and quaint, however there’s something to it. Fences obscure what neighbors can see of one another. In doing that, they offer neighbors extra management over what each shares.
However why do these fences – and this management over sharing – make for good neighborly relations? As a result of these relations require that we solely know issues about one another that can be instrumental in sustaining them in a wholesome method. When you recognize that I deal with the garden and that my children are roughly the identical age as yours, that fosters higher neighborly relations. In the event you additionally knew that I vote for the tribe you assume is politically despicable and have unusual sexual peccadillos, that may put the connection in danger. Arguably, the primary two items of data are additionally extra related to neighborly relations. Dwelling close to each other is made extra snug by realizing that our youngsters can play collectively, not by realizing what occurs in my bed room with my associate.
That is “impression administration,” the concept that made sociologist Erving Goffman well-known. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman presents a dramaturgical concept of social interplay, the place we behave round others in ways in which greatest replicate how we’d like them to consider us. Since we might want totally different folks – a romantic curiosity, colleagues at work, our youngsters – to see us in several methods, we could change the best way we current ourselves, relying on whom we’re participating with.
Sharing is a key a part of this, however it’s a selective sharing that additionally requires omitting. It isn’t insincere of me to share my sexual fantasies with my lover however not with my colleagues or children or to intensify a foolish facet of myself to my kids however to not my lover or colleagues. I’m displaying totally different actual features of myself to totally different folks, and likewise being conscious that different features of myself have the potential to distract (or be irrelevant), and that they need to be held again.
What must be shared, accentuated, or held again is determined by the relationships I’ve with these with whom I’m interacting. I’d disagree with my partner on politics, however the time we spend collectively needn’t have politics introduced into it, and bringing it in may damage our night. My neighbor could not approve of sure features of my way of life, however she fortunately has the nice sense to know that telling me this can probably resolve nothing besides making her really feel extra sincere, proper earlier than our neighborly relationship implodes.
Nevertheless, we reside in a social media age that promotes a much less discriminating ethic of transparency. I like transparency, and assume that early optimists round social media acquired loads proper after they extolled its virtues. Evil and corruption thrive in darkness, particularly when combined with energy. As a social species, we are sometimes on our greatest conduct when others know what we’re as much as and once we know that they know.
However after fifteen or so years of expertise with social media, we would return to asking to what diploma being good neighbors requires having good fences. For all the nice makes use of to which transparency might be put, is it much less good when it jumps out of these lanes?
We are able to begin by interested by what is sweet concerning the weakening and removing of fences. Social media promised us the improved capacity to share, and as sharers, we might supposedly obtain the advantages of constructing it simpler for others to see our photos and movies and to listen to our ideas; to have the choice of showing extra of ourselves to others. As recipients, we might have way more entry to details about others – from public figures to associates we already had and everybody in between – than we’d ever had as much as that time.
Extra info flowing between folks can clearly improve relationships. The extra I find out about a good friend’s previous, or present hardships, the higher a good friend I might be to them and the nearer we would change into. Additionally, there are circumstances the place the extra I really feel I can reveal about myself, the extra I’m relieved at not having to cover what I beforehand hid. And the extra we all share, the extra probably it’s that we’ll discover teams of supportive folks to share amongst.
One drawback with [in] social media appears much less that we share an excessive amount of, however that we share much less discriminately than we did earlier than. Goffman’s impression-management largely is determined by being considered about what one shares with whom primarily based on the context. Completely different relationships have totally different functions that demand sharing [and withholding] various things. Individually, there are myriad issues we may share, however every of {our relationships} serves sure functions, for which solely a few of them are apt. My partner, colleagues, and associates have to know various things about me, and whereas all of these issues overlap on a Venn Diagram, most of what I share with one doesn’t overlap what I share with others.
All of this, nonetheless, relies on a sure sensitivity to context and the discrimination that follows. What I share with whom must be primarily based on a consideration of what info these I’m sharing with want or don’t want for the needs of our relationship. Such a sensitivity to context is what I see much less and fewer of on social media in the present day, which is smart, as social media thrives by depriving what we share of the context that bounds bodily interplay.
We are able to take the instance of teen girls’ mental health using image sharing apps like Instagram. At its root appears to be the truth that ladies are sharing [and feel pressure to share] an rising variety of photographs of themselves. Commenters then share evaluative feedback on these photographs. [These girls and women are also seeing an increasing number of others’ images, which they can compare with their own and increase the felt pressure to share alike.]
I’m 45 and male, so perhaps I’m getting this improper, however I can solely think about that if teen ladies throughout my childhood have been requested in the event that they wished the chance to take and share a number of photos of themselves, to be commented on by associates, acquaintances, and strangers, most of them wouldn’t have been excited by the prospect. Fairly a number of would have discovered it gross. Sure, teenagers throughout my childhood wished to impress others, and we actually engaged in Goffman-style impression-management. However in all probability as a result of we didn’t have entry to social media, an important majority of our time was spent in conditions the place we weren’t sharing in any respect or have been sharing with a bunch of individuals restricted by bodily proximity. With out these limitations, one can – and more and more assume that one ought to – share with a wider viewers, and, after all, the broader viewers readily shares what it thinks of what you shared.
I solely used the instance of youngster ladies and Instagram as a result of it has been within the media of late. However clearly, this widened sense of sharing impacts different teams as nicely. I’ve written not too long ago about two such circumstances of sharing gone wild. One case was of an assistant football coach who was fired from his job after tweeting some snide issues – together with “fats” jokes – about then-mayoral candidate Stacey Abrams. A second case I wrote about occurred the day after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of killing two folks throughout an antiracist protest in Kenosha, WI. Opinions have been heated, and other people spent a number of days on social media participating in debate over whether or not the decision was justified. [That’s saying it politely.]
In these circumstances, too, we share and share and share when it defies contextual sense. When telling fats jokes about mayoral candidates [who may or may not have recently lost a recent race owing to racist voting laws], one ought to train care in who one tells the jokes to. One may even understand that sure relationships could possibly be jeopardized if the joke finds its method into them. That is particularly so when discussing the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, first as a result of it’s a fairly heated concern, and second as a result of our opinions on it haven’t any bearing on the end result of the case, which has already been determined by a governmental department arrange to not be attentive to public discourse. Certainly there may be expressive worth in sharing one’s beliefs with others, however this ideally must be balanced by interested by with whom and underneath what context this stuff must be shared.
Your neighbor is aware of you as the one who lives subsequent door, whose children are across the similar age, and who has a well-manicured yard. Your colleagues know you because the individual down the corridor who bangs out killer spreadsheets and is nice enjoyable at vacation events. Your partner, children, and associates know but totally different angles of you. Solely a few of these folks have to know and even care about your political convictions. Impression-management has typically been about what to share and what to maintain near the vest relying on the context.
Your boss used to assume you a mannequin worker till you made a fats joke concerning the mayoral candidate she voted for whose candidacy she thinks was torpedoed by racist voting legal guidelines. Now “racist” is what she sees. Your neighbor used to say “Good day” to you and cherished it when his children frolicked with yours, till he discovered via social media that you just and your partner are swingers who’re single by alternative. Now he thinks you might be morally unfastened and perhaps one thing even worse. Your prolonged household used to have superb if occasional household dinners, however these have change into tense ever because you discovered of your differing opinions on the exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse. In every case, indiscriminate sharing took an “us” and needlessly broke it into conflicting “thems.”
I’m not in opposition to sharing or the social media trade that trades in our willingness to do it. However sharing must be approached with extra warning than we regularly give. When you share, you invite others to – and that is the following essay – care about what you shared and probably change their view of you in response to it. Possibly it is going to deliver you and them nearer collectively. Possibly it is going to drive you additional aside. Possibly it is going to improve your fame. Possibly it is going to tarnish it. However it is going to have an impact. And for that motive, you may need to tighten up your impression-management.
