At least intermittently throughout the existence of FmH, I have shared the confusion about the point of weblogging that is one of the hallmarks of any weblogger trying to do anything more serious than an online ‘dear diary.’ One of the forms it took once upon a time during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq (and, indeed, the bombing of Afghanistan) was consternation about the lack of civil exchanges with the ‘warbloggers’. But eventually I became comfortable with my dismissal of both their ideas and their rhetorical tactics, and that was when the trouble began. Of course people continue to take offense at my relentless condemnation of the dysadministration and the fact that I demonstrate no intention to respect their feelings on the matter. [That others may find it boring in its relentlessness is another matter, and is of concern to me…]. It’s not just that I have my opinion, it’s as if I am saying, but it’s that my opinion is better. [That is what I am saying, and I would contend that that is what everyone feels about their beliefs; it is just that I am more explicit about saying so.] Months ago, there were several exchanges here about whether my opinionation represents closed-mindedness. It was the first time I noticed, in Rebecca Blood’s usage, the term “echo chamber” connoting people only echoing like-minded ideas around and around the net and never engaging in constructive dialogue with people whose opinions differ from theirs. Now it is apparently the newest darling meme. Since the Dean campaign, largely net-based, collapsed, folk wisdom has it that the insular “echo chamber” nature of the online Dean community contributed to the downfall by somehow impairing participants’ abilities to respond to realities instead of lulling themselves with out-of-touch colllective beliefs.
This Salon essay by David Weinburger dismantles both this notion of what went wrong with Dean and, more importantly, the concept of the net as echo chamber. My response to critics was along the lines that “my mind isn’t so open that any ol’ thing can wander in”, that not all opinions are inherently equal and automatically worthy of the same respect, that the idea that polite conversation with one’s ideological adversaries is the route toward reconciliation and accord is naive and unrealistic, that I am comfortable with my opinionation and entitled to be confident about my beliefs. If I didn’t say so, I meant to say that that does not automatically make me utterly inflexible or exclusionary, but that I enjoy (not so much preaching to the converted but) helping build a like-minded community on the web. Despite the name of this weblog, I am not looking for fanatical adherents [which is why I quickly dropped the conceit of referring to my readers as ‘Followers’!]. On the other hand it strikes me as a rather pitiful reflection on a person, who disagrees with me so much that they become apoplectic at my remarks, that they would continue to come to FmH for too long just to vent their spleen. Although I have sometimes enjoyed tapping into my reservoir of rage, it becomes old very quickly if I am not among good company.
Weinberger agrees that it is not necessarily cause for concern that people congregate with like-minded souls on the internet. “The fact that conversations start from a base agreement is not a weakness of conversations. In fact, it’s a requirement.” Certainly, if the large-scale agreement is all that happens, the conversation will not be very useful and the appeal of the website will not sustain itself, but fortunately “conversations iterate differences within agreement.” Too much explicit repetition of the ‘founding argument’ is probably what is responsible for the ‘echo chamber’ metaphor, but, Weinberger reflects, “so what?”
The underlying question — does the web inherently cause people to solidify or diversify their beliefs? — is a thornier one, probably best answered “yes” (g). Seriously, though, it is deserving of closer examination than the overly simplistic take on it the critics of the echo chamber phenomenon evince. First of all, Weinberger rightly calls into question the assumption that it is necessarily bad to solidify beliefs. Secondly, even if one spends most of one’s time on the net among like-minded ideas, that does not mean one spends all of one’s time in the echo chamber. Thirdly, “being grounded in some beliefs is a condition for having any beliefs. And that has nothing to do with echo chambers.”
Weinberger shares my dismissal of the naive belief in the possibility of engaging in “deep, meaningful and truly open conversation with people who fundamentally disagree with us.” This concept is perhaps the most difficult and unpalatable for slavish adherents of an unsophisticated version of the democratic ideal to grapple with. But it is why the ‘melting pot’ notion of democratic society has been replaced by a more nuanced notion of a pluralistic multicultural society. Even the Founding Fathers engineered a system based on majority rule [not that I am a fan of the utter dismissal of the minority position that the Founding Fathers’ paradigm promotes, however] rather than consensus, which the activist circles in which I have travelled have often attempted on principle to use as a basis for collective decision-making but which only works, if ever, when the base of agreement on the ‘founding argument’ is very firm and only the details are left to haggle over. Face it — the US is a deeply divided society, far less cohesive than most others in the Western world from my experience, or at least with fewer viable mechanisms for enfranchising the disenfranchised. Don’t try too hard to look for what unites us beneath our differences; despite all the flag-waving, it isn’t there. Our closest approach to it seems to be the destructive bellicose jingoism that emerges at times of threat like 9-11, and even that doesn’t work for me and many others. But placing us on permanent WoT® footing by manipulating our fear makes sense as the dysadministration’s best opportunity at a common denominator they can continue to use as a control handle.
Weinberger concludes:
We are at a dangerous time in the Internet’s history. There are forces that want to turn it into a place where ideas, images and thoughts can be as carefully screened as callers to a radio talk show. The “echo chamber” meme is not only ill-formed, but it also plays into the hands of those who are ready to misconstrue the Net in order to control it. We’d all be better off if we stopped repeating it and let its sound fade.
Sorry, David, to merely be ‘echoing’ you. I usually like to have a more complicated reaction to a piece, finding the differences within the agreement indeed. And I agree that, usually, posting a piece in order merely to comment that, yes, you agree, is pretty insipid. But, yes, I agree. I am pointing to your piece because you reiterate my take on the issue more eloquently and authoritatively than I have been able to do.
