Public Discourse and the Road to Repair

In our study of public discourse, it’s difficult not to feel overwhelmed.  The muddling of facts, polarized political sides, and adverse effects of technology are enough to give you a headache and make a manageable solution feel out of reach.  Yet James Hoggan reminds us in I’m Right and You’re an Idiot that “it is not a wise strategy to define a situation as inevitable or out of control” and in doing so you will simply create a “message that leads to paralysis.” 

   
In this case Hoggan was referring to the dangers of framing undeniable environmental problems through the lens of an impending apocalypse, which frightens citizens into an ignorance-is-bliss state of mind that turns off the switch to our planet’s environmental collapse.  This paralysis effect could be similarly applied to the deteriorating state of public discourse, where it is just as temping to ignore the massive problem and try to live your own life as best you can. 

But how do we avoid doing nothing to fix the state of public discourse without falling into the same patterns and habits that got us here in the first place?  I could recycle my trash and tell myself that I’m making an impact, while still driving my car, eating farmed meet, and wasting water.  Similarly, I could read a text on the importance of political collaboration, share my analysis with like-minded peers, and walk away with the consolation of “Hey, at least we’re talking about it.”

But at what point is taking about it enough to give people what Hoggan describes as a “will to find a way out of the dilemma?”  I think it all comes back to who you are talking to and how you approach talking to them.  I have no trouble voicing my opinions and ideas within echo chambers where I feel comfortable, but when was the last time I actively sought out individuals with a opposing standpoints to try to understand their viewpoint and listen with empathy? 

In the wealth of channels and individuals seeking to vitalize public discourse through their own platforms, certain approaches stand out from others in their accommodation to empathetic and collaborative discourse.  There is the widely popular TED organization, which broadcasts its “Ideas worth spreading” to over thirteen billion YouTube subscribers.  The array of poised and diverse individuals with generative ideas and perspectives is a refreshing change from the shouting matches we see in debates and on news broadcasts, but perhaps TED is tiptoeing around authentic public discourse in their politically slanted selection of presenters and speaker-to-audience approach.

Then we have individuals like Steven Crowder, who uses a feigned attempt at “real” public discourse to mask what is clearly an intention to spark polarizing arguments in his Change My Mind YouTube series.  In the videos Crowder sits down with college students to tackle hot button topics, yet his tongue in cheek tagline “Change My Mind” clearly implies he has no intention of doing so.  The videos consistently feature flustered or angry students, a smug Crowder, and a lack of empathetic or collaborative discourse.

Some platforms take a less flammable approach to public discourse without sacrificing substance or the equal presence of both sides.  Jubilee’s Middle Ground series on YouTube offers a unique setting for public discourse in which individuals with specific opposing stances or statuses come together to answer questions and discuss their ideas in what is typically an open-minded an nonthreatening environment.  With clickbait-y titles such as “Can Trump Supporters And Immigrants See Eye to Eye?” or “Can Sex Workers and Pastors Find Middle Ground?” it’s hard to tell whether Jubilee truly wants to facilitate authentic public discourse, or if they are simply playing into our growing desire to see at least some people get along amidst the heightened polarization in our country.   

What do you think of platforms like TED or  Jubilee's Middle Ground?  Are they laying the groundwork for a road to reconstructed public discourse that generates ideas and connections instead of polarizing opposing sides?  Or are they simply a spattering of plastic cups in the recycling bin that provide a temporary, feel-good countermeasure to an ever growing problem?