I started a little channel on Disqus in 2016, and have participated in
discussions on various platforms for over a decade now. It has become very
common to criticize social dynamics online, whether discussed in terms of
"trolling," cyber-bullying, the dimunition of "civility," the frequently
observed obsession with being "liked" and "followed" as a source of self-esteem
and validation, or other related issues that have received attention in social
discourse. While the resulting literature is often thoughtful (Sherry Turkle's
Alone Together and Jaro Lanier's manifesto, I Am Not A
Gadget, come to mind), the problem that I'm concerned with here is more narrowly focused. My focus here is on only one of the many problems mentioned above. To keep things simple, I'll describe the problem in terms borrowed from educational theorist, Alfie Kohn, in his book, No Conflict (1991). He coined a useful acronym to get at the basic issue, "MEGA." MEGA stands for MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
GOAL ATTAINMENT, and the psychology underlying it has deep roots in theories of cooperation and conflict.
The underlying core-belief in MEGA is that when people discuss
issues on which different and strong positions/viewpoints exist, it is generally
the case that it can best be understood as a "conflict" or "debate" in which one
party's gain entails the other's loss (as in a zero-sum-game). Like our adversarial legal system, it
presupposes that there must be a "winner" and "loser" on any issue of
importance. The binary of "win" and "lose" carries with it an attitude (ranging
from subtle to overt) of basic enmity. This comes up again and again whether the mutually
exclusive categories are framed in terms of political affiliation, musical taste, philosophical
theories, religious beliefs, sports or even seemingly innocuous topics like TV
shows and favorite celebrities.
Back in the noughties, I began to notice
youtube philosophy vids (youtube was still new then) formatted as
"point-counterpoint" debates. My academic background was largely in philosophy,
and so I was, at first, intrigued. One person would post a thesis or argument,
and another person would publish a rejoinder in which he or she (usually he, by
the way) tries to "defeat" the other party. If Sam argues for, say, free will,
then the response by Bill will be the most forceful attempt to show that Sam's
view is dead wrong in no uncertain terms. Such debates have a place in
traditional philosophy, but they also have limits. Both parties may have
insights, for example, and neither may have a full and adequate account of the
complex concept of free will. So there's a potential loss in terms of learning from one another or engaging in cooperative inquiry.
This can be generalized to most complex conceptual discussions. If my sole
focus is on "winning" an argument (where that means the other party "loses")
then I will selectively attend to what I see as the "weak points" in the other's
presentation, and vice versa. I may (subliminally or consciously) skip over
those portions of the content that might otherwise spur healthy *discussion* and
exploration, rather than win/lose debates. It's like reducing all political
discussion to Crossfire, the old show pitting "Left" and "Right" against each
other. I still remember when Jon Stewart went there to satirize these hosts
(esp. a young Tucker Carlson), which contributed to CNN canning the show. But
the "Crossfire" mentality was never "canceled," and no matter how erudite the
topic, one finds a similar interactive and cognitive style at work in many
online venues, including "academic Twitter," where professors and grad students are free to express themselves in ways not entirely compatible with the classroom.
The collapse of discussion into binary debating patterns carries
more serious threats to culture than the loss of learning opportunities, though.
When watching those vids back in 2006-7, I was put off by the hacker/gamer slang being used
in the content, comments and titles. Typical examples might be "Sam OWNS Bill," or the offshoot, "Sam PWNS
Bill" on the Question of Free Will/Existence of God/fill-in-the blank-debate.
Gamer slang had colonized online public philosophy and other "erudite" realms of discourse
online. According to a Wikipedia article, "the term
["pwn"] implies domination or humiliation of a rival, used primarily in the
internet gaming culture to taunt an opponent who has just been soundly
defeated." https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0940_pwned.pdf It was taken by teenagers and young adult from the world of
hackers where pwning basically meant controlling or compromising another
computer or server. So this is more than winning a binary debate, it has a *hostile*
connotation, to put it mildly. Ownership of another person is, by definition, chattel slavery. While this is obviously not what is being endorsed online, the meanings of words have consequences, and as authors like George Lakoff have argued, the "metaphors we live by" say much about our underlying cognitive and social structures. (see his book with Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By: U of Chicago: 1980).
More recently, during the 2010s, we've seen the strategical application of these terms, as in the case of "owning the libs." Self-described "liberals" and "progressives," on the other hand, tend to use more generic insults including "moron," "loon," "loser" and "idiot" to label opponents on the Right. https://qz.com/291533/this-is-how-liberals-and-conservatives-insult-each-other/ There are certainly high-stakes conflicts in policy, but depicting them in terms more appropriate to a grade-school playground than town hall meeting actually obscures and emotionalizes matters, generating more heat than light. It dumbs down political culture ever more drastically, and engenders a culture of round-the-clock toxic hostility. While it's true that in politics the history of this hostile style of discourse owes more to Right Wing radio shows than it does to Left Wing culture, this doesn't explain the appeal of the hostile MEGA interaction style now pervading discussions in domains as "refined" as philosophy, or religion among people across the political spectrum. For example, the New Atheism debates-- both pro and con-- of the noughties were characterized by much of the "pwning" and "owning" tropes; and discussions in that domain are still largely fought in crudely insulting and aggressive terms, even if the slang has changed.
I think it's easy for most of us to spot these behavioral traits and patterns in others, but how carefully do we evaluate our own output? Why does a blog-site like this one need to state, as a "rule," no less, "Don't be an asshole?" I'm not criticizing the rule, but questioning the conditions that give rise to it. Surely it is addressed to the actual and potential users of this site. To me, to you, to all. We think nothing of such "rules" at this point. It's a perfectly reasonable reminder given the state of interaction these days, right? I find it telling that such a "rule" blends into the background of consciousness like wallpaper. That is, it does not appear to jolt, jar, surprise or confuse anyone (correct me if I'm wrong and it has surprised you in the past). In a sense, it is an acknowledgment of one of the most serious problems we face today in culture and politics, and it would be interesting to see a calmly written post on exactly what it is that makes one an "asshole" online. What are the criteria? When did the traits in question become so omnipresent as to require such rules and warnings? What have we let ourselves become? How might we move towards more humane encounters with one another?
I have not answered those questions here. This is intended more as a spur to further thought on the issue. I think it's important to note that from the beginning of Web 2.0 in the noughties to present, this mentality or interpersonal style was not originally linked solely to politics, but came from a gamer (win or lose) MEGA mentality, in which others are experienced as adversaries to be dominated and humiliated rather than potential partners in prosocial dialogue and discussion. So, while this has certainly been evident and toxic in our politics, the mentality is deeper. Perhaps, in another OP, I will explore socio-historical roots of the problem. But for now I'm more interested in hearing from others.
Questions:
Am I exaggerating the problem?
Do you think the problem is unique to a certain ideological/political/cultural groups that you oppose, or do you see it as a pervasive aspect of communication in culture and society?
Have you ever insulted others in the heat of the moment while writing comments? Have you ever been hurt or upset as the recipient of such insults? What do you think are some of the causes of this phenomenon, and how might it be diminished and/or counteracted?
