Emotional Times
It recently dawned on me that Governments no longer govern people. They govern opinions. These days, people don't vote. Emotions do. Yes, a hand might ultimately pull the lever at the ballot box, but it is the emotion inside that voter's heart which sets in motion the wheels of any electoral backlash.
Maybe there was once a Utopian time (I can't quite pinpoint it; go ask a historian) in which the electorate exercised a conscious, effortful mental evaluation of policy positions of candidates and exercised their democratic power with the sober responsibility it theoretically entails. What is clear now, is that these are not those times. The Tsunami of information that has come with media's atomization (and later on with the internet), coupled with the increase in education worldwide, has created an environment in which any narrative can be built and backed up by data.
I do not mean to say that striving to increase education is a bad thing; but the availability of an infinite number of narratives given the astronomical amount of information now available at the click of a mouse, coupled with a more discerning mind on the part of the public (thanks to education's global advance) makes for an increasingly confident public. Alas, confidence does not imply discernment. We are natural suckers for coherence at the expense of rigor.
Information, understood as ideas that can be used to yield power, has become the proverbial apple of discord. The elites used to have its monopoly (and with this, a firm grip on power). That is no longer the case. Information can now be attained by anyone. And any intellectually cogent narrative can be woven out of that infinite cloth that is today's media landscape. This idea is so important to today's situation that I will repeat it: Any Narrative can be built and backed up. Which means that any person can construct its own reality. This is what's behind the explosion of conspiracy theories. This is why flatearthers enjoy their renaissance, why furry people are a fully, seriously recognized community, why pizzagate was entirely taken as fact by some, and of course, why climate change "is a hoax".
The public now feels they can dispute the authority of the elites. It feels empowered to question the traditional storytellers of yore like the newspaper, the TV channel, the newscast anchor, the government cabinet expert.
Granted, a healthy level of skepticism is always needed to ward scammers and bad actors off, but wholesale negation of expertise and rejection of authority is not necessarily a desirable way to rebuild a world order currently in full collapse mode. Especially if those rebelling to authority are not willing (and much less, able) to govern. I'm looking at you Indignados, and you, tent protesters, and especially you, Occupiers. And let's not talk about when those rebelling do it through conventional means (the ballot box). The lack of judgement expressed through their choices is depressing. Brexit, Trump, Duterte, AMLO, Bolsonaro. All political causes that won at the ballot box on the back of magical solutions that either don't exist in practice, or that in the long run will simply lead to catastrophe: "we will be better off isolated", "a wall will protect you from harm", "I will kill all the bad people", "corruption will disappear because I will be honest", "you will be better off with me as your dictator". All share the common thread of the promise to obliterate their respective old regimes.
But the public can't be this stupid, can it? I mean, they must know that isolation leads to ruin, that ladders beat walls, that genocide equals self-annihilation, that corruption is not eradicated by fiat, and that dictatorship eventually devolves into mass murder, right?... RIGHT?
Wrong.
When emotions drive decisions, we are prone to do stupid things. And trying to bring reason to an emotional person by pointing out the stupidity of his/her decision is not the right approach. But what's driving these emotional times? Hard to tell. Assigning causation in such a complex world is simply impossible. But my money is in the penetration, indiscriminate use of, and total stupefying effects of social networks. Sure, all these elections have been preceded by periods of economic deceleration, social disenfranchisement, unemployment, and increasing inequality, but we can't ignore the egregious ways in which Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp have devalued the political discourse in every country, as well as served as conduits for propaganda and fake news. Let's not forget that Facebook and Twitter's business model is, after all, to monetize our attention, which they achieve by triggering emotional responses (among many other addictive tricks), priming voters to act emotionally and irrationally. And WhatsApp is, well, just the perfect conduit to spread bullshit. The results are palpable. Facebook's incitement to genocide in Myanmar. Facebook's use as the perfect campaign tool in the election of a mass murderer in Philippines. Thousands of bots pushing pro-AMLO stuff on Twitter in Mexico. Massive pro-Bolsonaro disinformation campaign through Whatsapp in Brazil. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
So. In trying to make sense of this indecipherable mess, I've come up with my own narrative (hey, I'm also entitled to one). I am somewhat confident in it (but you're free to judge whether it's discerning or not). It goes like this:
First, the public got educated. Then they gained access to quasi-infinite information as they were exposed to explosive media proliferation (including the internet). They tested the sweet nectar of personally satisfying narratives, thought they knew better than the old experts and authorities, and simply stopped believing them. As they created their own reality (backed up by their own, legitimate data), they made up all sorts of mythologies. (All valid, I guess. Who am I to judge). When the economic and political model did not meet their expectations, they got mad. So mad, they demanded change. The first to do so were the youth, which, clueless idealists that they are, never amounted to anything. As disillusionment spread to more people (those who figured they could actually do something about it), they got angry. And opportunist populists, eager to manipulate in order to sweep into power, had this shiny new tool of emotional manipulation called social networks. They honed their use, and whipped the crap out of those emotions to bring those angry people to the ballot boxes.
The result is today's political landscape. A total clusterfuck if you ask me.
The hysterical ones are in power, but please don't point out the stupidity of their choices. It will make them more hysterical.
Where do we go from here? I honestly don't know. But if history is any guidance, it really does not look good.
Maybe there was once a Utopian time (I can't quite pinpoint it; go ask a historian) in which the electorate exercised a conscious, effortful mental evaluation of policy positions of candidates and exercised their democratic power with the sober responsibility it theoretically entails. What is clear now, is that these are not those times. The Tsunami of information that has come with media's atomization (and later on with the internet), coupled with the increase in education worldwide, has created an environment in which any narrative can be built and backed up by data.
 |
| Graph from GapMinder. Random selection of countries. ALL increasing their attainment levels. |
Information, understood as ideas that can be used to yield power, has become the proverbial apple of discord. The elites used to have its monopoly (and with this, a firm grip on power). That is no longer the case. Information can now be attained by anyone. And any intellectually cogent narrative can be woven out of that infinite cloth that is today's media landscape. This idea is so important to today's situation that I will repeat it: Any Narrative can be built and backed up. Which means that any person can construct its own reality. This is what's behind the explosion of conspiracy theories. This is why flatearthers enjoy their renaissance, why furry people are a fully, seriously recognized community, why pizzagate was entirely taken as fact by some, and of course, why climate change "is a hoax".
The public now feels they can dispute the authority of the elites. It feels empowered to question the traditional storytellers of yore like the newspaper, the TV channel, the newscast anchor, the government cabinet expert.
Granted, a healthy level of skepticism is always needed to ward scammers and bad actors off, but wholesale negation of expertise and rejection of authority is not necessarily a desirable way to rebuild a world order currently in full collapse mode. Especially if those rebelling to authority are not willing (and much less, able) to govern. I'm looking at you Indignados, and you, tent protesters, and especially you, Occupiers. And let's not talk about when those rebelling do it through conventional means (the ballot box). The lack of judgement expressed through their choices is depressing. Brexit, Trump, Duterte, AMLO, Bolsonaro. All political causes that won at the ballot box on the back of magical solutions that either don't exist in practice, or that in the long run will simply lead to catastrophe: "we will be better off isolated", "a wall will protect you from harm", "I will kill all the bad people", "corruption will disappear because I will be honest", "you will be better off with me as your dictator". All share the common thread of the promise to obliterate their respective old regimes.
But the public can't be this stupid, can it? I mean, they must know that isolation leads to ruin, that ladders beat walls, that genocide equals self-annihilation, that corruption is not eradicated by fiat, and that dictatorship eventually devolves into mass murder, right?... RIGHT?
Wrong.
When emotions drive decisions, we are prone to do stupid things. And trying to bring reason to an emotional person by pointing out the stupidity of his/her decision is not the right approach. But what's driving these emotional times? Hard to tell. Assigning causation in such a complex world is simply impossible. But my money is in the penetration, indiscriminate use of, and total stupefying effects of social networks. Sure, all these elections have been preceded by periods of economic deceleration, social disenfranchisement, unemployment, and increasing inequality, but we can't ignore the egregious ways in which Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp have devalued the political discourse in every country, as well as served as conduits for propaganda and fake news. Let's not forget that Facebook and Twitter's business model is, after all, to monetize our attention, which they achieve by triggering emotional responses (among many other addictive tricks), priming voters to act emotionally and irrationally. And WhatsApp is, well, just the perfect conduit to spread bullshit. The results are palpable. Facebook's incitement to genocide in Myanmar. Facebook's use as the perfect campaign tool in the election of a mass murderer in Philippines. Thousands of bots pushing pro-AMLO stuff on Twitter in Mexico. Massive pro-Bolsonaro disinformation campaign through Whatsapp in Brazil. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
So. In trying to make sense of this indecipherable mess, I've come up with my own narrative (hey, I'm also entitled to one). I am somewhat confident in it (but you're free to judge whether it's discerning or not). It goes like this:
First, the public got educated. Then they gained access to quasi-infinite information as they were exposed to explosive media proliferation (including the internet). They tested the sweet nectar of personally satisfying narratives, thought they knew better than the old experts and authorities, and simply stopped believing them. As they created their own reality (backed up by their own, legitimate data), they made up all sorts of mythologies. (All valid, I guess. Who am I to judge). When the economic and political model did not meet their expectations, they got mad. So mad, they demanded change. The first to do so were the youth, which, clueless idealists that they are, never amounted to anything. As disillusionment spread to more people (those who figured they could actually do something about it), they got angry. And opportunist populists, eager to manipulate in order to sweep into power, had this shiny new tool of emotional manipulation called social networks. They honed their use, and whipped the crap out of those emotions to bring those angry people to the ballot boxes.
The result is today's political landscape. A total clusterfuck if you ask me.
The hysterical ones are in power, but please don't point out the stupidity of their choices. It will make them more hysterical.
Where do we go from here? I honestly don't know. But if history is any guidance, it really does not look good.
Comments
Post a Comment