In a world where people are making enemies quicker than they can make friends, it is easy to freak out. Politics used to be a topic of conversation that was only whispered about during family gatherings, and possibly with friends about once every four years. Now, however, everything has changed. On social media, in middle school friend groups, at concert venues, in places of worship, everyone everywhere is disagreeing and writing each other off because of what is breaking the news today. It had drained the American people and has caused broken relationships all over our country. Paranoia and polarization have swept our country, leaving almost every American as its victim. So, we must ask ourselves, how can we identify paranoia and polarization effectively, so we are less prone to its tactics?
In Boris Vezjak’s piece on “Cultural and political paranoia”, he speaks on how much paranoia stems from individualism and subjectivity. He writes, “it offers everyone the possibility of individual choices on the free market, but in doing so instead of freedom it forces the individual into uncertainty and the impossibility of choice”. Vezjak’s argument is that paranoia originally started as a freedom so that some people could participate through conspiracies theories or through other means, however now it is forcing our entire world to false conclusions. Our culture has taken advantage of the ability to think and act freely, even to the point of destructing common truths and promoting false information. So now we are forced to ask ourselves, how free is freedom of speech when it is taken advantage of to bring us into a constant fear-inducing world? For clarification, I am not arguing against the freedom of speech by any means. I believe that is a human right. However, I still believe it is still a question to ask ourselves: How far are we willing to let the freedom of thought and speech (which Plato believes go hand and hand) go before we are constantly thinking, acting, and reacting in a state of paranoia?
We can see paranoia closely related to polarization when you look at paranoia in a political context. Political scholar, Dr. Lilliana Mason’s definition of polarization is “an expansion of the distance between the issue positions.” (Mason, 2018, pg. 17) Polarization occurs when people groups who hold the same political ideology see the people who hold the opposing ideology as “others” and enemies. They start to treat the opposing group as the problem of all of their issues and see their beliefs as morally evil, rather than just different than their own. We can see paranoia play into polarization as we recognize that opposing groups are not the problem to all of life’s problems. In fact, having differing opinions and political ideologies is what strengthens democracy and people. If there were no opposing ideologies, then our nation would be stuck in repeating itself repeatedly.
One of the places that we most commonly see paranoia and polarization is on social media. Social media is a breeding ground for paranoia as the world’s worst fears and accusations are constantly being typed out into 40 characters for the whole world to read and react to. Never has the dissemination of information been able to occur in this fast pace of an environment. With the ever-increasing desire to remain up-to-date and relevant, people are constantly reading new information and constantly voicing their opinions on it. This is the purpose of these accounts, and the users are taking advantage of it. The Conversation, a non-profit that publishes new articles and research reports, published an article to try and help people identify polarization language. The seven pieces of evidence that Robert Danisch wrote about were: division/identification, hyperbole, false equivalence/false analogy, appealing to force, name-calling, objectification, and overgeneralization. Out of these seven, three stuck out to me as the most used: hyperbole, false equivalence, and overgeneralization. All these tactics stem from paranoia, having an exaggerated reaction to an action, comment, policy, or person that doesn’t produce a logical reaction. For example, making the false equivalence that Donald Trump and his followers to the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler. People may have very strong opinions about Donald Trump, his policy choices, and even his morality, but our nation is still a democracy (even if it is a struggling one) and we still obtain the balance of power throughout our federal and state government, which Nazi Germany did not. As you can see, this statement strikes fear and paranoia in the public, automatically connecting our former president with one of the evilest dictators of all time, Adolf Hitler. This also creates polarization, so then everyone who voted for Donald Trump or anyone who supports any of his policies is now a part of the Nazi regime. Obviously, we know this to not be accurate and true, however social media and people’s word choices have power in the public and can have long-lasting effects.
In conclusion, paranoia and polarization play a large role in politics and people’s lives today. If we can identify the seven examples of polarization language and commit to not engaging with those types of news stories, social media posts, or comments by our friends, we can make small differences that can and will impact our communities. As of now, there are little to few institutional changes we can make to lower paranoia and polarization rates, but we can change the information we consume in our own lives that will affect the circles around us. Small change is still change, and it will make a difference long term.
Sources:
Danisch , R. (2022, March 1). 7 ways to spot polarizing language – how to choose responsibly what to amplify online or in-person. The Conversation. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-spot-polarizing-language-how-to-choose-responsibly-what-to-amplify-online-or-in-person-177276
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity Lilliana Mason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018, pp. 17
Vezjak, B. (2011, July 21). Cultural and political paranoia. Eurozine. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from https://www.eurozine.com/cultural-and-political-paranoia/
I think this is all true and pointed. I think something we did not talk about in class very much in tandem with polarization is the paranoia that it causes. It’s very easy to slip into a paranoid mindset once you start believing very extreme things. I agree with what you pointed out about social media being the cause, or at least the biggest contributing factor to all these attitudes. Like we talked about in class, the anonymity, social justice warriors, and loudmouthed conspiracy theorists on social media platforms lead to extreme views, strife, and conflict. That being said, being exposed to someone who agrees with you can be just as harmful, as it can turn into an echo chamber repeating the same “facts” over and over. There is rarely a good way of talking about politics on social media. People are either confirmed of their own beliefs by way of the echo chamber, or if they see wildly different opinions from what they believe, they will dig their heels in even harder and start believing more of their own ideas in response. The other dynamic that social media brings into the paranoia discussion is the way that chatting works. Only people who are most passionate will comment on something. This will then cause someone else who is even more passionate to comment in response. Then all that’s left to look at is a few people screaming at each other over the Internet. This is of course, not a representative sample of how society really behaves towards each other. However, it can be weird and even fear-inducing to see. Then it becomes a kind of vicious cycle. Like you said, there is not much we can do institutionally, but we can for sure arm ourselves intellectually against the panic and paranoia specifically.
I really enjoyed this post and agree that paranoia and polarization are pressing issues in our modern politics. It is easy to point that out, and as you mentioned, much harder to address how to deal with these foundational issues in our polity. I found your point about how freedom of speech is being ‘taken advantage of’ to give validity to harmful rhetoric that is not based on facts or reality. Freedom of speech is one our most sacred liberties and is vital for a healthy democracy, but to your point it can also be weaponized and used to spread conspiracy and disinformation that only serves to divide and polarize. There is no easy solution. Perhaps that is the irony of democracy, the very piece of it that is so vital to its survival may be its undoing…very Shakespearean. As you pointed out, social media has played a massive role in the abuse of free speech and the exploitation of paranoia. I think one factor that has caused these issues to be exacerbated online is that social media allows for anonymity, or at the very least distance, from how one is exercising their speech. It is much less costly to tweet something discriminatory at someone than to say it so their face because real life has consequences. This same principle applies to extreme rhetoric. Not only is it less costly, but one may find themselves in an echo chamber that reaffirms their fringe beliefs and makes them feel as if they really are in the majority and/or correct when reality does not reflect that. Furthermore, social media can be used to intentionally target people and exacerbate/radicalize their existing ideology.
On a slightly different note, I have seen the same trends that you mention in the introduction to you post. Politics has never been a more public issue and your personal policy preferences have never defined who you are within society more than today. This factionalism is dangerous and allows for deep mistrust and even hatred between people who could have gone their whole lives not caring about one another politics. This needs to change. By no means am I advocating for political apathy, that is also dangerous. However, we as a society must find a way to separate our politics from our core identity. Nobody falls perfectly within one political party or set of ideas and aligning one’s whole identity to partisan politics is self-destructive as well as a detriment to one’s own sense of self.
Thank you for sharing Ann Hollis! It is definitely no secret that Americans are fed up with the polarized and paranoid nature of the current political landscape. I agree that right now, social media is a driving factor towards polarization and paranoia. That being said, I’m interested to see what affect Elon Musk’s recent purchase of twitter will have on social media’s relationship with politics. Musk has shared that his plan for twitter is to make it a “politically neutral” space that allows for a maximum amount of free speech. Musk’s self-proclaimed commitment to political neutrality and free speech runs the risk of an increase in spreading misinformation. By reducing the number of accounts banned based upon twitter’s previous policies against hate speech and. misinformation, Musk is giving paranoid conspiracy theorists a platform to further promote polarizing political propaganda. The line between free speech and spouts of paranoia is a fine one. I believe that Elon Musk’s plans for twitter come from a place of good intentions; he has a vision of a network of communication where people can express themselves freely. However, I also believe that his vision is naive, and fails to consider the serious implications misinformation and paranoia on social media have on democracy.
Hey Ann Hollis, I thought this was a great post! It feels like polarization has increased so much during our lifetime with the growth of technology, and that it will only get worse in the future. Personally, I have definitely been guilty of writing someone off because they don’t share the same beliefs as me, something I’m trying to remedy as I am to be more perceptive to all kinds of beliefs. I’ve witnessed the same kind of behavior in my own family, as many of my family members have grown apart due to different political ideals. I’m also interested in psychology, so I found your connection between polarization and paranoia to be fascinating. I really liked your point that the goal is not to limit free speech, but to still work to ensure people are not saying things that create unnecessary fear in other people. The idea of an “other” definitely plays into fear tactics and creates enemies between people due to different beliefs. Being someone who uses social media regularly, I’ve seen countless examples of polarization, and it has only increased with recent elections. Social media makes spreading information instant, allowing people to say whatever they want while maintaining a feeling of anonymity and therefore feeling that they can avoid consequences. This allows people to speak their most polarized views without fear of retribution, and finding others who share these ideals encourages polarization. In addition to your point, every time I think about polarization now I’m reminded of the excerpt we read in class from Strangers in Their Own Land by Hochschild. Hochschild wrote that many Americans feel that others are “cutting them in line,” and this idea leads to resentment, paranoia, and polarization. I feel like these ideas go very well with the point that you’re making in your post.
I found your post very interesting and relevant. In particular learning about the seven pieces of polarizing language. I agree that hyperbole sticks out as one that is most used. I think we all have a tendency to make things a bit more dramatic and exaggerated than we intend. I think about when people say they are moving to Canada after a particular candidate loses an election. This is similar to your examples of the false equivalence of comparing Donald Trump and his followers to the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler. However, I do think people are more intelligent than you are necessarily giving them credit for and when they hear these statements they understand that they are not to be taken literally. In your last paragraph you write about institutional changes to lower paranoia and I am curious as to what those could possibly be. I do agree that there are few institutional changes that can be made and it is the culture that needs to adjust in order to decrease polarization. I believe that this starts with political elites changing the language they use on their platforms. This includes on the news, social media, and in speeches not using language as divisive and encouraging their supporters to do the same. Following changes with the language of political elites would be changes with anyone with a wide spreading platform. It’s not just political elites that shape the culture surrounding politics as people look to actors and social media influencers also for their political views. In your opener you write about how much more common it is now to talk about politics with a variety of people and various situations. I definitely agree with this, the notion that it is taboo to talk about politics is definitely still around. While I do agree that this is not great for polarization, I think that it is necessary for politics to not be something of just elites but something that is easily accessible and understandable for all Americans. Politics and holding political opinions is not something just for the wealthy and well educated but for everyone to have equal access to and unfortunately I think polarization goes hand in hand with increased political access.