From politics to hockey, we’re too polarized for our own good
After John Ciaccia’s death last Tuesday, the tributes that poured in illustrated just how different this era is from the one in which he worked. A former Quebec cabinet minister, Ciaccia is perhaps best remembered as the government negotiator during the Oka Crisis. Most telling, he was respected by those on both sides of the conflict.
There was a similar sentiment when Warren Allmand died in late 2016. As a federal Liberal MP representing Notre-DamedeGrâce, Allmand developed a reputation for asking hard questions of his own government and throwing hyper-partisanship to the wind, something that would cost him his position as chairman of the Commons justice committee in 1995.
A proclivity for avoiding entrenched positions was possible in the 1970s and 1980s, but one is left to wonder whether it still is today.
We’re increasingly inclined to dig in our heels and position ourselves as diametrically opposed to any views that are different than ours, even when there are fewer differences than we’ll admit. It polarizes discourse, makes compromise less likely than ever, and every debate is seen as a zero-sum game.
It’s not just in politics that moderation has given way to polarized sensationalism, either. It seems that no matter where one looks, the middle ground has been crowded out in favour of the extremes.
Platforms like Twitter reward those who take polarizing positions — those are the tweets that get retweeted and discussed the most. They allow people like Alex Jones, the notorious American conspiracy theorist, to continue to use their platforms, regardless of the veracity of their statements, even as Jones has been banned from some other platforms. Based on estimates of the income Jones has brought in since going full-on conspiracy clickbait artist, one could even say it’s very good for business.
The last two weeks have served notice that, in Montreal, the troubling trend of defaulting to hyperbolic statements is spreading. Narcity, a publication whose entire business is based on peddling sensationalist headlines, has made headlines itself. First, the site spun a handful of harmless Instagram comments between bloggers into a story about “the EXTREME diet” girls needed to get ready for Osheaga. Backlash ensued, the site apologized. Then, another article appeared on the site, this time warning women about the nine personality types that scared men off.
Both stories were inherently sexist and sensationalist, but here’s the thing: As troubling as it is on an ethical level, it’s part of a wildly successful business plan because even those disgusted by the headlines open the articles to see what’s inside. Those who expressed dismay were unwittingly drawing attention — and thus clicks and money — to the Narcity pieces.
We live in a time in which we consume two types of information: That which confirms what we already believe or that which offends our values. So information gets filtered to the extremes, leading to a world of sensationalized clickbait and hate clicks.
In the media, that’s what pays the bills; in politics, the same sensationalism can win elections. After Donald Trump, there’s no more room for the middle ground, it seems.
Even when it comes to far less serious things, the default positions are now at the extremes. Look at the Montreal Canadiens. At any given time, the Canadiens are either seen as poised to win the Stanley Cup or the general manager should be fired. It’s been that way for as long as I can remember.
Therein lies the biggest problem of all. The generations that are soon going to make up the bulk of the population have grown up in an insanely polarized, hyperbolic and sensationalized world. Things are either “the best ever” or “terrible,” black or white, but never grey. People like Ciaccia and Allmand, who were able to find compromises between competing interests, seem foreign to us.
We’re used to people trying to scream over each other to extol the values of their increasingly dogmatic ideologies — whether that be politicians in debates or competing media outlets with their headlines. What we’re not used to anymore is people trying to find common ground and foster compromise with hushed voices.
Perhaps the one positive is that it has bred a generation of activists that care deeply about their values. We saw it in 2012 when students flooded the streets to protest tuition hikes — the only course of action, it seemed, was physical protest because coolheaded dialogue never worked. We saw it again with those protesting SLĀV, many of whom were young and part of a new generation of activists.
Sometimes by digging in our heels and shouting we galvanize those who are open to discussion. It’s a vicious cycle where everything becomes polarized and exaggerated and we surround ourselves with what we want to hear.
Eventually we’ll get tired of shouting and we’ll be curious about what the other side has to say regardless of whichever side you find yourself on.
We’ll stop rewarding sensationalized information designed to reinforce our beliefs or spark outrage, and we’ll welcome people who champion balanced dialogue and discourse.
But things being what they are these days, some might consider that idea to be extreme and vehemently oppose it.