E por que não na política? Os impactos são evidentes. O cidadão conectado e integrado tem mais condições de participar, protestar, apoiar, cobrar, etc. Os resultados são visíveis, desde a primavera árabe às recentes campanhas eleitorais.
Uma dúvida que paira no ar é se a intensificação da polarização, tão presente em inúmeros países, seria fruto dessa era digital. Não fico à vontade para discorrer sobre o assunto, pois precisaria de um conhecimento histórico muito maior para tal. Conhecemos bem o que vivemos hoje, mas qual era a sensação de um semelhante há 50, 100 ou 200 anos? Por isso, resolvi chamar os universitários.
Recorri ao Quora, aquele serviço de perguntas e respostas, povoado por acadêmicos, curiosos e palpiteiros. A pergunta foi: A polarização política é um problema crescente em todo o mundo. Será que vivemos um momento sem precedentes na história mundial? Tenho a impressão de que a era digital contribuiu para isso, principalmente por causa da inclusão de milhões, antes excluídos de qualquer debate. Estou certo?
Todas as respostas obtidas até 3/9/20 estão logo abaixo no seu idioma original (inglês).
Muitas delas são categóricas em dizer que a polarização é algo antigo e que a sociedade esteve até mais dividida em outros momentos da história. Vale ler as respostas pela quantidade de exemplos. Neste sentido, a tecnologia da informação possui um papel marginal.
Vários concordam que, de alguma forma, a era das redes sociais contribui ou amplia esse efeito. Milhões de pessoas foram incluídas num debate com pouca moderação, ficando à mercê de políticos e influenciadores, que não hesitam em usar polarização como estratégia retórica.
Um aspecto interessante é a percepção da polarização, que é diferente de pessoa para pessoa. O meu caro leitor talvez nem esteja incomodado com o assunto. Entretanto, aqueles que acompanham e interagem intensamente ainda incorrem no risco de ficarem presos na própria bolha, sem dúvidas, um dos efeitos mais perversos das redes sociais.
Caro leitor, fique à vontade para colocar a sua opinião na rede social em que você leu este post ou no próprio Quora.
Foto: Outra tomada do Lago Bled (Eslovênia), agora, com a
sua marca registrada, a pequena ilha.
Leitura complementar:
Eco
(2013) - Quando falei sobre o efeito bolha em 2013.
Pew
Research (2014) - Estudo sobre a evolução da polarização nos EUA. Algo
comprovado.
Respostas:
Nancy Roberts
Some of
the problem is no doubt perception. A greater part of our day, each of us, is
now spent online and consuming opinion “news” and information. Add to that the
competition among news outlets for eyeballs and advertising dollars, and that
all becomes overheated rhetoric. Try an experiment - drop your consumption of
the Internet and for that matter “news” altogether for a few days. My guess is
you’ll perceive a lot less polarization unless it’s your habit to discuss
politics with friends and neighbors every day. When I think back to how much of
their day my parents spent consumed with national and international news, as
opposed to the neighborhood, school, and local news - or none at all as compared to
their daily round of chores, activities, social occasions, reading books,
family and relaxation time - it’s no wonder their day to day stress came more
from whether the laundry was done or one of us kids had acted up or the car
needed servicing as opposed to whether Trump or Biden was the worst person in
the world and was literally Hitler.
Mark Gould
The answer is
far more complicated than that. Yes, the digital age includes more people in
any discussion/debate about politics. However, the major reasons for
polarization have to do with the multiplicity of media outlets that now exist. When
I grew up, Americans turned to three TV networks for news. These were ABC, NBC,
and CBS. Today, there are far more sources of news both on the internet and on
television. As the number of sources multiplied, news began to be presented
with particular political viewpoints. For example, FOX slants news in a
conservative fashion. MSNBC slants in a liberal fashion. What I believe goes on
is that people deliberately shop for a news source that tells them what they
want to hear. There are so many sources today that almost everyone with every
viewpoint can find the source they want to listen too. This causes all of us
to retreat into our own corners and seek out those who think like we do rather
than to engage in a real debate where some might change their opinions after an
open and frank discussion. That is the real reason today for political
polarization. What is most depressing to me is that I do not see how this is
going to change and I fear the repercussions of so much polarization for our
country.
John Metcalfe
Not at all although
it is a feature of political rhetoric to paint the current circumstances as if
the crisis afoot is the biggest crisis of all. 40 years ago, Thatcher and
Reagan were painted as extremists, they kept winning and their countries went
onwards and upwards. The pattern is repeated ad infinitum.
Andrew Jackson
Yes, we do but the digital age has not suddenly enfranchised anyone. All that has happened is that audience has grown. The comments that Facebook contributor xyz makes are no longer just heard by 5 fellow workers but by 50 self-selected individuals all with the same viewpoint. In effect, the decline of reading Newspapers has resulted in bigots not having their viewpoint challenged. A consequence of this is extremism, populism, and the rise of hatred.
Paul Trejo
I disagree. As someone who witnessed the 1960’s first-hand, my opinion is that the sixties were just as divisive as today. The Cuban Missile Crisis has no correlate today. In world history? No way. World War 2 was more divisive. So was World War 1. So was the Civil War. So were the French and American Revolutions. No — this is not an unprecedented moment in world history. The Internet and Mass Media have almost NOTHING to do with it. People are naturally divisive and have been since the start of recorded history. It’s even throughout the Bible.
Tom Appich
My view is that the polarization is due, at least in part, to the pace of change that the world is experiencing today. Much of that arises from the digital age, but it is also because of the end of the bipolar world, split between communism and democracy. The older world was dangerous but stable. Since 1991, it’s been a free-for-all.
Rafael
Marcus
Political polarization it’s a very old problem. The problems of today are as many as before, but the digital age introduced new channels of communication with better availability and ease of use for everyone. If one follows the chat rooms media, will be very easy to see that the groups are divided by subjects and points of view (moral, political, etc.). There isn’t much new, but the speed and ease of use. The people were divided during the French revolution (1789) or the Bolshevik revolution (1917) The French revolution was caused by the lack of food, caused by the French money spent to help the anti-British American revolution and the refusal of the French nobility to pay taxes to help the economic situation of the hungry French population. In 1917 in Russia the soldiers were sent to fight the war with broken shoes and not enough food because of the existent corruption and embezzlement of public money. During both revolutions, the result was the killing of a lot of people, guilty and not guilty for the socioeconomic situation. During the different historic periods, the mediums of communication evolved from pictures on the cave walls to papyrus, the printing press, photography, film, electronic media, and so on. Every one of these new media channels brought more people into the circles of people of knowledge. Regardless of the period people communicated through gossip and meeting in the middle of the village or in the pub after work or during the weekend. Talking, reading, and writing it’s what differentiate the humans from other animals.
Alain Mellaerts
It’s the
sign on the wall of change. The ancient regimes are under stress. It’s very
hard to generalize but dictatorships and liberal democracies are under
pressure. Everybody is a member of the media; Ideas can be easily spread and
revolutions coordinated thanks to the digital age. A bit like the effect of
printed books and the reformation in the 16th century. The extremer parts of
our societies, left, right, religious zealots…, are pulling the carpet their
way causing cracks in the fabric. Add a virus, global warming, a refugee crisis, and social unrest, the stage is set. Change is in the air.
Polarization has always existed but it seems much more intense today. Clearly, there are certain groups and organizations that profit from polarization and are doing everything in their power to make it happen. Unfortunately, in the US most of it comes from our political leaders who see polarization as a means to seize and retain power. Certain parties engage in class warfare not to make a point but to created hatred and distrust so as to stay in power. They use issues like race, abortion to try to divide Americans. There are so many issues Americans could work together on but it is not happening because certain people don’t want it to happen. Healthcare is such an issue because it affects everyone. At some time, people will wake up and start directing the political dialogue instead of letting the politicians direct it.
Weijiu Wu
Well, we always live in an unprecedented moment in world history. People in the 40s live in unprecedented times as they experience the greatest war the world has ever witnessed. People in the 50s’ live in unprecedented time as they experience the start of the cold war. People in the 60s live in unprecedented time as they experience the worldwide human rights movement and the space race. Yadi yada. You get the point. It's not that we are special and live in a special time, its just human institutions are inherently unstable, especially world politics, as there’s no centralized world government to coordinate the actions of individual nations. The US achieved world hegemony, and as a result, achieved some sort of shallow world order. As the US becomes increasingly weak internally with continued power and wealth disparity between the elite and the populace, that shallow world order that revolves around the US is breaking down, causing disintegration and polarization of the world.
Democracy is predicated on compromise, horse-trading, and what some might see as corruption. Indeed, compromise is a corruption of two or more opposing ideas. I wouldn’t worry about the government that follows the wrong path. We do that all the time. I would be concerned about the absence of corrective feedback. That is a flaw associated with dictatorships led by strongmen. For us, corrective feedback comes in the form of elections. For so long as we have an honest procedure to choose the direction of our government, and as long as we are willing to tolerate results that go against our favor, we can avoid the fates of countries that just won’t listen. The example of the USSR springs to mind.
Maybe in some indirect way but the digital age is not the primary reason. The overall controlling source of polarization comes from international capitalism, financial centers, and corporate power. Those forces demand control of the masses and manage mass psychology by propaganda like the ad agencies of Madison Avenue. The gigantic amounts of money and wealth can buy everything needed to do exactly their bidding. A polarized population is a controlled population who are unable to ever unify in solidarity thereby never becoming a threat to the ruling class. Good luck people.
