The Pitfalls of “National Conversations”

“…We, who repeatedly enlarge our instrumentalities without improving our purposes.”–Will Durant

Since its founding, we’ve seen Twitter employed in the service of political and social causes worldwide. Whether its a meeting place for revoultionaries during the Arab Spring or a meeting place for social activists in India, it has the power to bring into conversation people who would otherwise never meet. Much ink has been spilled on the virtues of this aggregator of thought and passion, specifically for young people, but little light has been shed on the downsides of this new platform for edification or abuse.

A recent article in The Nation details the intra-movement fighting of online feminist activists—the movement is constantly self-purging of those who aren’t ideologically sensitive enough:

The expectation that feminists should always be ready to berate themselves for even the most minor transgressions—like being too friendly at a party—creates an environment of perpetual psychodrama, particularly when coupled with the refusal to ever question the expression of an oppressed person’s anger.

Arguing constructively is difficult to do. Prerequisites for being able to do so include: a robust understanding of the other person’s point of view, sincerity on the parts of both parties, and a measure of humble deference equal to your familiarity with (or lack thereof) your opponents background, intentions, and character.

All of these seem to be lacking in significant numbers of the women and men engaged in feminist debates on Twitter— and that’s not by accident. The medium skews the conversation. Talking about these issues nationally and virtually enables poor, divisive input on many fronts.

Debating virtually removes the necessity and even the possibility of developing a robust understanding of an author’s point of view. Critics need only gather as much information as they wish before responding; very little information can be pressed upon readers who decline to click onward or are uninterested in the author’s personal background.

Debating nationally removes the context you’d have for placing an opponent’s character or background. Two commenters may have no acquaintances in common, lack similar cultural touchstones, and know nothing of how an activist treats people in real life.

Perhaps we should think more seriously about what topics can be reasonably translated to national, virtual conversations and which cannot. Debates that center around real human interaction and the desire to love one another well suffer from the removal of all real relationship from the conversation.