Just read this interesting article about the tendency for people to filter out all online content that doesn't match their own political views, and how that makes them more extreme in their opinions and less likely to remain open-minded toward dissenting views. It's the blessing and curse of having so much information at one's fingertips.
While I certainly can't claim to be as diplomatic as the man in this article seems to be, I've definitely felt the effects of the echo chamber before. At Stanford, I clearly remember the internal sense of doubt I felt while engaging in activism on campus, specifically labor activism. While I had a sense that there was good in the high-level cause, I really didn't know much about the situation beyond attending a few rallies on campus. So I joined the labor activism coalition in order to try and learn more, and to be able to help more. But something just did not click for me about it. I didn't like that at every meeting, people would make announcements about various labor-related conflicts going on in nearby towns, and without knowing any specifics about each new situation, everyone was expected to immediately jump on the bandwagon, talk about how evil the employers in the situation were and how much money they must be hoarding, and attend some rally, or make some calls, to weigh in on the employees' side.
Maybe the labor action coalition was the wrong place for me to be if I was going to want to question each new situation, and evaluate it before choosing sides. But if that wasn't the place to discuss it, where would I find a more appropriate place? The only other people who seemed to even care enough about those issues to discuss them were the Stanford Republicans, who often staged counter-rallies, and who basically considered the labor action team to be a bunch of rabid communists.
Basically, there was no such place, unless I wanted to make one myself. But for me, college was about finding my voice, finding my values and convictions; it was too easy to get sucked into the different echo chambers, and to feel as though I never had enough factual knowledge to engage in real debate about those issues. My attempt to participate in labor activism was my attempt to receive some of that factual knowledge; instead, I felt as though people were trying to brainwash me. But since I was the only one who seemed to want to ask questions, I also felt guilty, like, maybe I wasn't a true activist; I wasn't necessarily with them in every situation, so I must be against them. I must have my values in the wrong place.
Happily, I've come a long way in growing out of that self-doubt. I know where my values lie, and I believe that if they're worth believing in, they should stand up against any amount of questioning and analysis. That's why I think this article is so important. Not only was it frustrating to me to feel that I couldn't ask questions in that labor group, I really believe that the echo chamber attitude largely undermined the effectiveness of the labor action movement at Stanford. The teach-ins were littered with as many propagandist slogans as facts, and the attempts to "negotiate" with the administration on labor rights consisted of calling them names.
I recently went with my girlfriend to her Berkeley CalServe reunion, CalServe being a campus political party with the mission to promote diversity and justice on campus. They also supported many of the same causes as the groups I supported at Stanford, but they also talked a good deal about reaching out to people who didn't necessarily share their views, about strategies for educating people and persuading them to care, and about convincing the administration to agree to make changes by appealing to their sense of what is right. And the only way to do that is to first recognize that they are people too, most often with their own set of good intentions.
I was totally inspired by what the CalServe people were saying, and it is really in line with the article's idea of engaging with people and doing the hard work of putting one's ideas and opinions to the test. I really hope there can be more of that in the world.
While I certainly can't claim to be as diplomatic as the man in this article seems to be, I've definitely felt the effects of the echo chamber before. At Stanford, I clearly remember the internal sense of doubt I felt while engaging in activism on campus, specifically labor activism. While I had a sense that there was good in the high-level cause, I really didn't know much about the situation beyond attending a few rallies on campus. So I joined the labor activism coalition in order to try and learn more, and to be able to help more. But something just did not click for me about it. I didn't like that at every meeting, people would make announcements about various labor-related conflicts going on in nearby towns, and without knowing any specifics about each new situation, everyone was expected to immediately jump on the bandwagon, talk about how evil the employers in the situation were and how much money they must be hoarding, and attend some rally, or make some calls, to weigh in on the employees' side.
Maybe the labor action coalition was the wrong place for me to be if I was going to want to question each new situation, and evaluate it before choosing sides. But if that wasn't the place to discuss it, where would I find a more appropriate place? The only other people who seemed to even care enough about those issues to discuss them were the Stanford Republicans, who often staged counter-rallies, and who basically considered the labor action team to be a bunch of rabid communists.
Basically, there was no such place, unless I wanted to make one myself. But for me, college was about finding my voice, finding my values and convictions; it was too easy to get sucked into the different echo chambers, and to feel as though I never had enough factual knowledge to engage in real debate about those issues. My attempt to participate in labor activism was my attempt to receive some of that factual knowledge; instead, I felt as though people were trying to brainwash me. But since I was the only one who seemed to want to ask questions, I also felt guilty, like, maybe I wasn't a true activist; I wasn't necessarily with them in every situation, so I must be against them. I must have my values in the wrong place.
Happily, I've come a long way in growing out of that self-doubt. I know where my values lie, and I believe that if they're worth believing in, they should stand up against any amount of questioning and analysis. That's why I think this article is so important. Not only was it frustrating to me to feel that I couldn't ask questions in that labor group, I really believe that the echo chamber attitude largely undermined the effectiveness of the labor action movement at Stanford. The teach-ins were littered with as many propagandist slogans as facts, and the attempts to "negotiate" with the administration on labor rights consisted of calling them names.
I recently went with my girlfriend to her Berkeley CalServe reunion, CalServe being a campus political party with the mission to promote diversity and justice on campus. They also supported many of the same causes as the groups I supported at Stanford, but they also talked a good deal about reaching out to people who didn't necessarily share their views, about strategies for educating people and persuading them to care, and about convincing the administration to agree to make changes by appealing to their sense of what is right. And the only way to do that is to first recognize that they are people too, most often with their own set of good intentions.
I was totally inspired by what the CalServe people were saying, and it is really in line with the article's idea of engaging with people and doing the hard work of putting one's ideas and opinions to the test. I really hope there can be more of that in the world.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment