It’s commonly observed that political vitriol is stronger than ever before in recent memory. The left thinks the right is a bunch of Nazis ready to Sieg Heil to Trump whenever possible, while the right thinks the left is a bunch of tone-deaf, cross-dressing terrorists, ready to riot on cue. The great rift is growing ever wider and never the twain shall meet, it seems.

Have you ever considered just how much social media has contributed to this state of things? Yes, I know that social media is everyone’s favorite whipping boy, and as such, we all – myself included – zone out when it’s mentioned. But this time social media’s role in the great political divide struck me in a different way. To illustrate, imagine the following scenario with me:

You’re friends on Facebook with several people you’ve known in person for years. You thought they shared your viewpoints and beliefs, but you’re now realizing they think differently than you do on a variety of topics, as they’ve frequently aired their opinions on their Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok spaces. You still appreciate their friendship, so you mentally resolve never to bring up the topics they just posted about on social media in a real life conversation.

This works for a while, but as they keep posting their opinions, you keep adding items to the list of things which must not be named. Pretty soon, all you can do is talk about the weather, and you eventually drift apart from those longtime friends.

Unless I miss my guess, you’ve probably experienced some form of the above story in recent years. I certainly have. Maybe we’ve even been the culprits, regularly sharing our opinions on various social platforms.

“So what?” people may say. “It’s a free country, we have a right to air our opinions whenever and wherever we want.”

And that’s absolutely true. But what we often fail to realize is that the very ease with which we can air our opinions to a nameless and faceless crowd may encourage us to word things far more strongly than we would in a face-to-face setting.

What’s worse, choosing to air those opinions in the social media setting may actually win more opponents to our viewpoints than adherents. Consider, for example, the lesson Benjamin Franklin learned as a young man, recorded in “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.”

According to Franklin, he once loved to argue and debate with others, airing his opinions as absolutes. He dropped this practice, however, when he learned about the Socratic method, taking on the role of a “humble inquirer and doubter” when engaged in a discussion or disagreement. “This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting,” Franklin writes.

He goes on to say that those who don’t wish to change minds or persuade others to adopt their viewpoint should follow the path that many of us often pursue on social media posts: a dogmatic, I-am-always-right attitude. Doing so “seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure,” Franklin explains.

[T]he chief ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to persuade,” Franklin writes, thus pointing out the civility that must often accompany verbal engagements, but which is often lacking in online debates.

Franklin didn’t live in the social media age, but he still struggled to ensure that his face-to-face conversations didn’t descend into contentious arguments where each side became more entrenched in his respective views. This is proof that online platforms aren’t solely responsible for creating the great divide which has sprung up in recent years.

And yet, Franklin’s observations on the purpose of conversation underscore why social media interactions have likely increased this same divide.

For starters, they make it far easier to spew absolutes. When no one is physically standing there, acting as our mirror and sending body language signals that our opinions are coming off as harsh, arrogant, and off-putting, then we have less chance to rein ourselves in.

Online interactions also hinder us from hearing the other side. Sure, we may have others comment and argue back, but they, too, are less likely to temper their words, adding more fuel to the fire. Either side can also mute the disagreement after a while, ignoring those who disagree with them. Still others – the quieter ones among us – may chose not to engage at all, thus preventing us from hearing the wisdom that often seems more prevalent in the quiet, thoughtful, reserved individuals.

We can certainly continue in this path, using our social platforms to make sure our opinions are heard … but what if we tried applying Franklin’s approach to today’s world? What would it look like if we refrained our tongues on social media, and instead began investing in face-to-face conversations with others, asking for their takes on a certain issue in the news, and then posing thoughtful questions about those areas we don’t agree with or want to understand better? Is it possible such an action would begin building relationships that lead to changed minds, rather than causing each of us to retreat to dwell alone in our dark corners of the internet?

—

The republication of this article is made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal. 

Image Credit: StockSnap