"I have thought a lot about why people get so hostile online, and I have come to believe it is primarily because we live in a society with a hypertrophied sense of justice and an atrophied sense of humility and charity, to put the matter in terms of the classic virtues. ... In our online debates, we not only fail to cultivate charity and humility, we come to think of them as vices: forms of weakness that compromise our advocacy. And so we go forth to war with one another."
--Alan Jacobs, professor of English at Wheaton College, writing at Big Questions Online. (Via ArtsJournal.)
I think this is correct, but incomplete. I've given a lot of thought to the notion of a "hot button" issue. I initially believed that people got worked up over certain issues because these issues were perceived to be important. But I've noticed a tendency - people tend to get angry at two stages of a debate. They first get angry when they discover that someone they identify with holds a different view. They also get angry later, when they begin to lose the debate.
As a Christian, I've experienced this phenomenon numerous times. Christians generally oppose evolution and homosexuality, and favor criminalizing abortion in almost all cases. I do not. I haven't adopted my positions on these issues in order to stand out or annoy my fellow believers. I've adopted these positions because I think they are right. But inevitably, when my views become known among Christians that I have been in fellowship with, people within that fellowship become angry.
Why do they become angry simply because I disagree with them? Part of the reason lies in the comfort that believing within unanimous concenses provides. "We believe" is very reassuring, particularly when "we" refers to all of us. The mere existence of dissent breaks the power of "we believe" to reassure us. It puts us on notice that we will have to supply reasons for our belief - reasons that we may not have bothered thinking through or checking. Dissent constitutes a threat to established beliefs - some of which are near and dear to us. So, naturally, dissent causes anger.
People also get angry when their arguments are exposed as inadequate. Part of this is not wanting to have to change our beliefs or reject traditional wisdom. That is a painful process which we all work hard to avoid. Most of us can tell when an argument we've relied on is weak - if you doubt this, ask yourself why the Proposition 8 Derfendants worked so hard to keep the tape of the trial from the public even after the defense only put on two witnesses? Getting angry and lashing out is a pretty effective way of dismissing even the most telling argument - or at least muddying the waters so that you don't have to answer the tough questions.
But I think people ultimately become hostile because they are unwilling to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. If you're unwilling to consider the possibility that you're worng, you're not looking for the truth - you're certain that you already have it. It is natural for someone in this situation to get angry with a dissenter who they cannot convince - especially when what the dissent says sounds convincing.
It just so happens that a clear majority of Christians are in this camp. The idea that they could be wrong about any of the issues I mentioned is unthinkable - and not because they have thought these issues through after giving the opposing side a fair, open-minded hearing. They believe they have an infallible source of information about the history of the world, morality, and politics, and (I suppose) infallible teachers and/or infallible powers of interpretation.
If I believed any of those things, I'd surely get mad if anyone challenged me.
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
2 comments:
Interesting take. There's probably an interesting argument to be made about Akrasia and internet mediated discussions. Dialogue that's largely removed from physical concerns might be different from both oral and paper based dialogue. Yes, of course, there's lots of interesting work in that general area but I have not seen anyone flesh out the break down of online communications as the result of weakness of will. Perhaps it's not a very strong line of thought but it's worth considering what happens when, for the most part, bodies and stable written systems play a reduced role in dialogue.
Akrasia? You can't drop a word like that and remain anonymous! :)
Written dialogue has the greatest potential to achieve and spread insight. If they chose, people engaged in written dialogue have time to reflect on what's being said and carefully formulate their responses. Unless you're talking to people who are used to argumentative dialogue, and are committed to civility, in person discussions about important issues (where people disagree) break down pretty fast - in my experience anyway.
I hinted at this in the post, but I think there is another reason why people become so angry. People allow themselves to adopt strongly held beliefs on topics on which they have never given much thought. The number of people who think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided greatly swamps the number of people who have actually read the decision and considered its reasoning. When you have a strong opinion on a topic that you don’t know much about, you’re bound to get angry when someone challenges you – in person or in writing.
Joe Huster
Post a Comment