In a liberal democratic world order, differences of opinion are the normal, standard practice. The liberality of the citizens encourages and tolerates these differences. However, in the last ten years or so, this basic attitude has undergone a radical change. Liberality has stopped being a basic civic attitude and it isn't a courtesy we extend to friends and strangers alike anymore. It's an indulgence that's reserved for the like-minded. The closing-off of ranks is particularly visible around some of the burning political questions of contemporary times viz. refugees vs the nation, minorities vs. the majority, etc. Political dissidence isn't treated as a right of liberal democracy but as anti-national and seditious. The same is true of the dissidents who treat the opposition as akin to fascists. Curiously, this decade of political polarization has also coincided with the rise of technological democratization.
The arrival of social media, android phones, and high-speed internet has brought about a veritable revolution in information and communication technology. This revolution has been a revolution of ‘technological democratization'. By ‘technological democratization', I refer to the sudden and foundational change that has given the people greater access to the means (or, the technology) of communication without the interference of either the state or the traditional structures of power. Communication isn't a mediated process anymore but something more immediate and intimate. By revolutionizing the scope and speed of communication, the technological revolution has fundamentally altered the concept and act of communication per se. Never before in human history have we been constantly and uninterruptedly connected. Yet, people are more divided than ever before. Why? It's beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail the reasons for this phenomenon. Yet, I will risk a conjecture.
Communication is a means of building society between human beings. We communicate our ideas and emotions with our friends and family. The content and manner of communication build people's perception of each other. Certain theories of communication view it as a fundamental social activity. Pragmatist theories of communication argue that misconceptions and differences arise out of miscommunication. Their solution would be to communicate more, and even more openly. However, such theories of communication fail to account for another facet of communication i.e. the limits of communication. As the name suggests, there are limits to the ameliorative powers of communication and beyond a point it helps only to rigidify viewpoints. Even though I may communicate without reserve, it may not lead to empathy. Instead, it will convince my interlocutors that their viewpoints are incompatible with that of mine. If I don't assume a studied silence on the bone of contention, the 'communication' will degenerate into a squabble and soon these differences of opinion will become entrenched.
The technological democratization has revolutionized the means of communication but not it's content. People bring their convictions to this new space of communication, and it influences the dynamics of discourse even in here. Technological democratization has given the age-old prejudices a newer and wider audience in an age of political anxieties. The constant and unceasing communication has rigidified opinions into intractable political positions that are often reflective of class, caste, race, and other such biases. There isn't anything shocking about this development but it's disappointing to lose an opportunity to cultivate empathy and understanding to the dictates of contemporary political polarization. For me, it proves that political and social problems of the day influence and shape the content and form of discourse, and there are limits to the 'revolution' that technology per se can usher in.
Afterword
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask before I close this post:
The arrival of social media, android phones, and high-speed internet has brought about a veritable revolution in information and communication technology. This revolution has been a revolution of ‘technological democratization'. By ‘technological democratization', I refer to the sudden and foundational change that has given the people greater access to the means (or, the technology) of communication without the interference of either the state or the traditional structures of power. Communication isn't a mediated process anymore but something more immediate and intimate. By revolutionizing the scope and speed of communication, the technological revolution has fundamentally altered the concept and act of communication per se. Never before in human history have we been constantly and uninterruptedly connected. Yet, people are more divided than ever before. Why? It's beyond the scope of this post to discuss in detail the reasons for this phenomenon. Yet, I will risk a conjecture.
Communication is a means of building society between human beings. We communicate our ideas and emotions with our friends and family. The content and manner of communication build people's perception of each other. Certain theories of communication view it as a fundamental social activity. Pragmatist theories of communication argue that misconceptions and differences arise out of miscommunication. Their solution would be to communicate more, and even more openly. However, such theories of communication fail to account for another facet of communication i.e. the limits of communication. As the name suggests, there are limits to the ameliorative powers of communication and beyond a point it helps only to rigidify viewpoints. Even though I may communicate without reserve, it may not lead to empathy. Instead, it will convince my interlocutors that their viewpoints are incompatible with that of mine. If I don't assume a studied silence on the bone of contention, the 'communication' will degenerate into a squabble and soon these differences of opinion will become entrenched.
The technological democratization has revolutionized the means of communication but not it's content. People bring their convictions to this new space of communication, and it influences the dynamics of discourse even in here. Technological democratization has given the age-old prejudices a newer and wider audience in an age of political anxieties. The constant and unceasing communication has rigidified opinions into intractable political positions that are often reflective of class, caste, race, and other such biases. There isn't anything shocking about this development but it's disappointing to lose an opportunity to cultivate empathy and understanding to the dictates of contemporary political polarization. For me, it proves that political and social problems of the day influence and shape the content and form of discourse, and there are limits to the 'revolution' that technology per se can usher in.
Afterword
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask before I close this post:
- To where does the revolution in communication headed towards?
- What is the role of silence in a discourse?
These are fascinating questions to speculate about but these are for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment