I know we’re all feeling it. Society is divided, and blatantly so. You are either on this team, or that team. There is no in between. “Oh, you don’t agree with me on this specific topic? Then you must be evil and therefore I will have nothing to do with you.” Humans are nuanced, complex creatures. When you meet someone, you will undoubtedly find several ways you are different. But you will also find several ways that you are the same. Unfortunately, we are being pulled to the far ends of the political aisle. At this great distance, whoever wishes to be heard, believes they must shout.
Social media is predicated on the notion that the more shocking a post is, the more engagement it will receive, and therefore the more likely it will spread. So it’s no surprise that the most popular posts are from people on the outlying edges of the political spectrum. I firmly believe that both the far right and the far left are bat shit crazy. It’s absurd that we have a two party system. How can someone’s whole political ideology fit neatly into one of two boxes? It can’t, it shouldn’t. Polarization is increasing, and I think I know why. I also have a few ideas on how to reverse it, or at least, slow it down.
So why are we so polarized? Let me illustrate it…
I think we’ve all seen this funny scenario— Two dogs will be held back by leashes or separated by a fence. They bark and growl furiously. It sounds like they would at any instant be willing to maim and kill the other dog. But you take off the leash, or open the gate, and what happens? The dogs become silent, they become polite. They don’t know what to do with themselves besides sit and stare at each other.
Online we are like dogs held back by leashes. We know we can say whatever we want without any serious consequences. We can rail against the other side and point out their blatant faults all day. We can bark and bark, knowing that the worst that we’ll get is some barking in return. But do we bark at each other in public? Do we actually attack each other like wild dogs? Most of the time we don’t. But sometimes we do, and I think it’s become more common. And I believe there’s someone in the shadows, cheering us on to fight. Just a few years ago, most of us would act like those dogs with good owners, docile once we’re face to face with the so-called enemy. It used to be impolite to talk about politics or religion at the dinner table. We’d focus our conversation on the many things we could agree on. But now, it’s commonplace to fight over politics, and it's one of the several things tearing families apart. We are like wild dogs now, like pups who never got trained correctly, or perhaps, are being purposely trained to fight.
What’s making us so vicious? Ego is what makes us growl. Everyone believes that they are right. And everyday that belief is getting reinforced. How? Well, don’t go thinking for a second that we’re not being trained. We are. Everyday we are being molded into narcissists. So, who are these abusive owners that are training us to not only bark, but to bite? Well, what puffs up the ego more than anything? Who is pushing advertisement that caters to self and pursuing its needs above all else? What platforms are built on sharing your every thought and experience, an endless feed of narcissism? Our media is our owner. It’s keeping us leashed up, holed away in our yards and houses, lest we interact with another human face to face and see that we are not the center of the universe. The media’s money and power are predicated on marketing that listens to your conversations and offers up whatever you might want or need. The ads will tell you that you deserve it, that you’re the ‘bestest boy’ and they're going to take care of you, as long as you keep coming back for more treats. The algorithm will make sure that you see only what you want to see, because why should you be bothered by any ideas you disagree with? Echo Chambers make for comfortable hiding places, but harsh realities. It’s no wonder that we snarl and bite when we see another dog on the street. Because how dare that dog be on my street? How does this dog not know that I am the ‘bestest boy’? I must show him that the bestest boy is never wrong. And then, once we do attack, there will be someone there to film it, post it, share it. And there ensues the rage, there ensues the vitriol and the endless backlash. The powers that be, namely the media and its conglomerates of powerful corporations that control it, want us to fight. Why? Well, it’s good for views. The more people who tune in because they are outraged, the more money they’ll get from advertising. More clicks, more likes, more money in our owners pockets. They want us to be ornery. No dogs win in a dogfight. But their owners sure do.
They want to keep us apart. The more we fight with each other, the less likely we are to see that they’re the ones setting up the ring and cheering us on to a bloodbath. If we keep our eyes on the vicious claws and the teeth of the enemy, we won’t see the money change hands. When we snarl and growl, we won’t hear them say that the loser’s gonna be euthanized after the fight. After all, if we can no longer fight, if we no longer rake in the money, what use are we? I don’t know what plans they have for us. Whether it’s inside forces or outside forces, odds are, their plans are probably fairly predictable— just plain control. Keep us distracted, keep up consuming, keep us riled up enough to vote them in through our ballots and our budgets. They’ll do whatever it takes to keep money in their pockets and power in their grasp, even if it means tearing us so far apart that we rip at the seams. Rulers have been doing it since the dawn of time— divide and conquer.
So how do we stop the division? How do we make ourselves unconquerable?
It starts with virtue. Okay, I know how boring and prudish that sounds. But just hear me out. There’s a real logic to my idea, and it begins with the father of logic, Aristotle. The Ancient Greek philosopher proposed the idea of the golden mean. He said that each virtue is the mean, the middle point, between two vices. On one side, you have too much of something, and fall into vice. On the other side, you have too little of something, and likewise fall into vice. Let’s take the virtue of courage as an example. If you have a deficiency of courage, you have the vice of cowardice. If you have an excess of courage, you have the vice of rashness.
This is very unlike how our polarized society sees things. We often see virtue and vice simply as opposites. You are either cowardly or courageous, prideful or humble, stingy or generous. It’s either wrong or right, black or white, and whoever’s on my side is right and whoever’s on your side is wrong. Because we are so polarized, the stereotypes of the Right and the Left correspond pretty neatly to many of the vices that sit at the far ends of virtue. “That party has too much of this, and this party has too little of that.” If you go through each virtue, you can probably point out which vices correspond to the opposing political party. And if you’re honest with yourself, you can probably realize that your political party often lands on the other end, also not in virtue. Sure, it doesn’t fit with every virtue, but you get the idea. The Right and the Left are pretty clearly opposite—I don’t think anyone would disagree. But I believe both sides are wrong, likely wrong on most things. If we want to find the right answer, maybe we have to meet in the middle. Maybe in the middle we will find virtue.
“But how can I compromise my values? I know what’s right and there’s no way I’m budging.”
Okay, that’s the ego talking. We don’t know, we believe. If someone “knows” that they’re right, they are very likely wrong. Wisdom begins in humility, the opposite of an inflated ego. I’m not saying we should drop our beliefs and absorb the values of whoever speaks next. Certainly not! But we need to let go of our egos enough to understand that the opposition is human, no matter how despicable their views seem. It is unjust to judge someone on the basis of their political leanings. You do not have the history, experiences, and information that the other person has. They came to their conclusions honestly, just as you came by yours. And no matter how contrary you find their views, there are ways to meet in the middle without losing yourself.
But first, we have to understand how people change their minds. You can write all the nasty comments you want, you can post that political cartoon, you can try anything and everything to convince the other person that they are wrong. But odds are, you’ll just make them hate you more. While someone’s views can change, it's not often done through dogmatic arguments from the opposition. One’s mind is often simply changed by their environment and the personalities of those in it. The more you are around a person, the more you will become like them. Call it peer pressure, social osmosis, or indoctrination. Whatever it is, it’s real. You become like the people that you socialize with the most, especially those who possess traits that you see as virtues. If you like someone, you consider them virtuous in some way and will be more inclined to listen to and consider their beliefs.
Wondering how someone you know has seemingly changed? Have they recently entered into a new school, social club, or job setting? Have they entered into a new sphere of influence, either in person or online, that they have found kinship with? You may think they are going through a phase, and perhaps they are. For what is a human life but an unending state of change? It’s not a moral failing to change, to be influenced. It happens. We should be free to change our opinions and beliefs. But we should be highly aware of our changing beliefs and we should carefully consider if they are moving us towards virtue or away from it. If we want to find common ground, we must remember that hearts and minds are not changed by angry comments in all caps. They’re changed by friendship.
“But I don’t want to be friends with them. I hate everything they stand for and they hate everything I stand for.”
Well, I’m not saying you have to go find yourself a friend on the opposite end of the aisle. You don’t have to. But you’d probably benefit from such an association, and so would they. But don’t be shocked if someone downright rejects you. Beware the person whose whole personality is their politics. If you're in the opposition, friendship is nearly impossible. If they think that they have all the answers, their ego is stuffing their ears shut, so there’s likely no room for any of your reasoning to get in. If more of us can lower the walls of our egos, we will be better able to speak face to face, human to human. When you form a friendship with someone opposite of you, you both have a chance at absorbing the positive traits of the other person. Using the example from before, when a cowardly person and a rash person become friends, they will, over time, become more like each other. The rash person will absorb some of the coward’s hesitancy, and the coward will absorb some of the rash person’s willingness to risk. So as the relationship progresses, they will nudge each other closer to the middle, and hopefully meet in the virtue of courage. This is the reason we like buddy comedies. The two characters are so wildly different, too different to be friends at first, but then they grow on each other and learn from each other. We ought to be willing to make more unlikely friendships. Since we become more like the people we spend time with, it stands to reason that if we form friendships with people who struggle with a vice on the opposite end of our vice, we may both end up nearer to the virtuous mean.
Even in the cases where we are unable to form true friendships, where our values and beliefs are just too different, we should still be able to learn from each other. How? By arguing. But specifically, arguing respectfully. Arguing is healthy. All relationships must contain arguments because that is how people learn, grow, and discover how to interact properly. We’d all benefit from more open discussion between the two sides, a way to find some sliver of peace. And yet again, this starts with deflating the ego. We must be able to humbly present our opinions, compare our facts, and come to an agreement, even if it's ‘I agree to disagree.’ That’s a fair conclusion. But we have to be able to have friendly debates. We cannot shut down another person's argument just because their views differ from us. If we silence every opposing voice, we will never find any common ground.
So how can we lower the walls of ego?
I have two ideas that go hand in hand.
Firstly, let’s silence the echo chamber. If we want to deflate our own sense of self righteousness, we have to cut out the media that seeks to inflate it. We must get rid of the media in our lives, silencing the endless stream of scare tactics and other manipulations to keep us coming back. I promise, we would all be 10% happier, at the very least. There’s a reason you’re telling yourself that you can’t just shut off our media, that it’s important, that you need it to some degree. The truth is, these technologies are addictive, and they are purposefully designed to be so. Still, we always have the option to put it down, turn it off, and walk away.
But many people feel like they can’t, perhaps because their business depends on these platforms. Most of the commissions I receive, I get from social media, but I find this process of self-promotion soul sucking, not to mention a giant sinkhole of time that drags down my mental health. If I could press a button and delete all social media from existence, I would, in a heartbeat. I understand that without it, news of our products or services couldn’t travel as far, that we couldn’t reach as wide an audience. True. But if we had to sell our products and services without it, we would be forced to become more active in our nearby communities. We would get to know our customers more personally, and isn’t connection what leads to repeat sales?
You may argue that this technology ‘connects’ us. True, but only superficially. There’s a huge trend with people branding themselves as relatable, unpolished, or real. That’s what people want. But you cannot find that online, even in the feed of the most down to earth, honest person. You have no chance of knowing someone’s true self, seeing their real face, until you interact with them in person. You cannot know someone’s character, their virtue, until you experience life with them and see how they react, real-time, no-filter, in times of difficulty. Not only does social media filter away people with opposing views (or offer up opposing views so that you can spend more time on the app, angrily commenting and sharing). It also, by nature, provides parasocial relationships that are built on carefully curated exaggerations and omissions. Perhaps friendships can begin online, but if we want to truly know each other, we must live alongside one another, fully exposed to the raw difficulties of life, and only then can we see our neighbor without barrier, see the vice that corrodes their core and the virtue that yet shines through.
At the very least, I beg of you to significantly reduce your time with your chosen media. And when you do choose to partake, be conscious of the images, words, and ideas that you are consuming. Take note of how they make you feel, how they make you act and react.
But as with any addiction (and yes, it is an addiction), we have to replace it with something else, something better. We need productive hobbies. We need to use our creativity (yes, you are creative, even if you don’t think so). And in order to do that, we need to let ourselves be bored. We have to sit with ourselves and give our minds a fighting chance at reasoning out the solutions to our problems, instead of just jumping to our devices to soothe and distract. Kill procrastination, get stuff done, be creative, solve problems, think for yourself!
Secondly, we must make time for honest self-reflection (which is made easier by limited media consumption). We all are trying our best, or what we believe to be our best. But we often get so caught up, so busy, and so comfortable in our way of thinking, that we can’t take a step back. How often do we take an honest look at ourselves? And by “honest”, I don't mean harsh. For some, self-reflection can quickly become self-condemnation. Remember that you are not as wonderful as you believe, nor are you as terrible as you believe. It’s not about padding your virtue resume or flogging yourself for your vices. It’s about giving yourself an accurate grade. You must take stock of your virtue, and honestly. It’s often very hard to look at yourself from the outside, so it may be helpful to talk to someone you trust to tell you the truth. Ask them where they think you fall on the chart of virtue above. You may think of yourself as a fairly virtuous person, many of us do. But we have to consider that even the traits we think of as our virtue, are actually our vices.
You may think you have the virtue of humility, but you may actually be pulled down by shame. Instead of focusing excessively on your strengths, you dwell too long on your weaknesses, creating a spiral of negative self-obsession. Perhaps you consider yourself generous, but you may actually be acting extravagantly, spoiling others and putting your own family finances in jeopardy. Or maybe you’re the brainy person who knows the right answers and can solve any problem. But your discernment may actually skew towards judgmentalism. Sure, you may be right about a lot of things, but that makes it easy for you to bypass grace, easily dismissing other people and their views. Under the false impression of embodying any virtue, we can easily slip into vice, as individuals, as well as political parties.
If we wish to be free, we have to stop blaming the opposition and work on ourselves. We must break the chains of our digital enslavement, go out into the real world, and give ourselves a fighting chance to form our own opinions. We must take an honest look at ourselves and work everyday to trade our vice for virtue. Only then can we tear down the walls of ego and see each other face to face. And once we’ve found common ground, pulling each other towards the mean of virtue, we can compromise in the name of civility and find a portion of peace.
