The Big Sort
August 2, 2008, 9:54 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Bill Bishop’s book about the clustering of like-minded people. Thansk to Mike McG in the comments on Peter Nixon’s post below for bringing it into the discussion. Here’s the interview with Jon Stewart:
If this is true, it is because of affluence and the means of mobility, and that did not happen as easily 30 years ago. This is interesting because the homily I heard in church yesterday emphasized that a human’s biggest fear is rejection, and of course this was reflected back to Christ on the cross as a means of comfort and understanding. So if a person has the ability to cluster, they will do so, and probably more quickly if they are not undergirded in faith.
So does the Catholic blogosphere cluster?
Cathleen–I think all humans cluster. And it’s not bad unless it shuts out discussion with others. Our catholic church has attracted others because of its universality, so in the scheme of things we aren’t doing that badly. The social justice issues are tricky, and can be polarizing if people don’t have the courage to keep the discussion going. Plenty of people have thrown themselves into those discussions, and it has taken a great deal of courage.
I’m not sure that the blogosphere is the best place to encounter opposing ideas in a way that makes you less likely to cluster.
Maybe some people read only blogs that agree with them. But I don’t think the answer is to read blogs that are entirely opposed to what you think. I try from time to time to read blogs that try my patience ideologically—and I don’t think it helps expand my sympathies. Same thing with television networks–Fox or MSNBC, depending upon your preferences. I find that I need to read people in book form –or watch a whole news hour, to develop a context which helps me to develop a charitable interpretation.
Cathy:
In my estimation, the Catholic blogosphere does cluster in a couple of different ways. First of all, as Denise points out, we congregate and open up where we feel, where we’re less like to feel rejection and therefore put at ease. So, yes, participants police blog borders no less on the progressive end of the spectrum than on the conservative end. But there is another form the clustering takes: the clustering of the more categorical, dare I say doctrinare, to frequent participation in this medium, resulting in the muting of more moderate and ambivalent voices.
I’m intrigued with your comment on the prior thread about the role played by professional socialization, particularly your example of Federal judges’ capacity to achieve comity despite significant disparities in viewpoint. I have very rarely observed people face-to-face assuming the harsh tones that are routinely displayed on blogs. Your thesis provides one explanation; there is no screening to enter the fray, no learned capacity to smooth sharp edges. Another is the general disinhibition introduced when face-to-face contact is absent. And then, perhaps, many of us are so wounded we feel compelled to vent and yet but can’t give vent in more interpersonal settings.
Anyone ever wonder how different the discourse would be if dotCommonweal were a physical place? Would we be more likely to insert ‘I take you’re point’ or ‘I can understand how, from your perspective, that argument holds’ or even ‘I’m ambivalent and at sea on that topic.’ Such comments are a staple of real conversations but seem to be absent in blog discourse.
I think that’s a good point, Mike. I was thinking about teaching on-line. When I teach, I regularly adjust what I say –content, tone, how much background, etc.—by looking at peoples’ faces. I don’t know how you’d do that in an on-line lecture.Same thing in conversation. Lots of nonverbal clues, including tone.
On the federal judges — well, law school provides a common socialization, a common way of reading texts. So does occupying a certain high level of authority –like being a judge, and a common sense of a shared responsibility.
As long as that shared responsibility does not shut out poosibilities of growth through others views. During the primaries I routinely watched CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, and I would say in equal portions. It certainly showed me different viewpoints, but did not convince me to change my viewpoint. In some ways though, I’m sure I was influenced by each network. Knowledge of other viewpoints can be powerful.
Cathleen,
In addition to the ways of clustering described by Mike I think there is another form of clustering particular to blogs and this is particularly true of those who self describe as “pro-family” blogs.
They feed off each other, repeating endlessly, what one or the other may have started. I follow a series of Google alerts all on the topic of Catholic education for both traditional websites and blogs. I will often find the same item over the space of a few days repeated on many ideologically similar blogs.
I have come to view blogs as similar to those consumer pyramid schemes only now the product is ideas.
Cathleen (and anyone else who’s interested):
You mentioned Bill Bishop’s book. It was featured recently at TPM Café’s Book Club. Among the many posts were several by Bishop himself. Go to http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/20-week/ and then scroll down to the post titled “Book Club– Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort.” From there, you can work your way back up.