For Politics, How Much Knowledge and Critical Thinking Is Enough?
Much has been written lately about information silos, or bubbles. If the term came out of management science, and investing, it now seems to be applied to all management – and more important, consumption — of media, of our exposure to news. For information on politics, we assume that a small number of sources control all that we know about our world, our country, our community. The conspiratorially-inclined even extend this silo concept to education – hence, by extension, to ALL REALITY as we know it! Clearly, the less you know the more likely you are to fall for massive conspiracy theories. But is the inverse also true? Is maximizing your knowledge intake always the path to enlightenment?
It may be worthwhile to examine the information silo idea a bit more carefully. The first question we ask should be: Where does my information come from? While true that some of us read more than others, some watch cable news, some don’t, some are more ensconced in social media than others, all of us have favorite sources for our preconfigured world views – even back to an oral tradition of talking to our family and neighbors. We all live in a filter bubble of some sort. And two features of that bubble are: a), it is managed by editors somewhere, presented to us in ways that are intended to maximize its impact; and b), it has BOUNDARIES, there exists a world outside of the bubble. Speaking for myself, I always try to remind myself of both these factors — especially b), the boundaries.
I enjoy pushing those boundaries outward – it’s much like exploring the cosmos! What new worlds may lie beyond my experience and knowledge? I know, from following U.S. politics, that there is a grand history of division between different regions of the country, different religious traditions, different geographic environments (urban vs. rural); and, of course, different economic circumstances. Division may be unpleasant to deal with but, if it doesn’t result in violence, I don’t believe it is necessarily a bad thing. We have elections for a reason in America! I wish those various circles of belief and orientation had a wider variety of political outlets than just two big parties. But I don’t have a plan to get there given our existing power structure. In the meantime, it seems both major parties in the U.S. must aim to be “big tents” – each incorporating multiple interest groups, multiple world views. If one such interest group (or a small coalition) tries to “purge” their party of all others, it seems that party will be doomed to shrink! Shrunken vanguard parties are good for revolution, not so good for democracy. Even multi-party democracies (like France in its recent snap elections) show a distinct tendency over time to succeed with coalitions – the broader coalition gets the most votes.
And the framework of coalitions can inform the whole issue of bubbles in a two-party system like ours as well. Going back to that primary question of “where do I get my information,” we ought to be able to expand our media surveillance to the digestion of multiple sources. I wouldn’t advocate forcing people to consume sources on the opposite extreme of their own beliefs, but simply to pick from a menu of several choices – like a salad bar! Of course, somebody will still curate what is found on that salad bar (factor a, above), but the salad bar should be available to all. I’m in favor of “all-you-can-eat” buffets, myself. But what if your appetite is less than mine? Maybe you’re just not that hungry? Apparently, many Americans purposely avoid the all-you-can-eat approach.
Here is where it is important to not shame the less hungry (they’re probably thinner and fitter!) – how much information consumption is healthy, anyway? Is there some minimum standard for civic responsibility in a democracy? Are the requisite calories available to all? How much exercise, via critical thinking skills, should we apply to work off excess calorie intake? Did we consume enough in our formative youths to create a solid knowledge base that carries us through life? And, key, can we admit to any possible deficit caused by a too restrictive early bubble? The menu at an Outback Steakhouse, after all, is quite different from the salad bar at Le Madeleine French bistro! And, true enough, our information appetites are greater near election times – we’re less hungry in election off-years.
Realizing this, I still don’t like to see any sizable groups in my country alienated from the political process, unable to find a buffet that suits their tastes. Everybody should fit somewhere, and nobody should view the political constellation of their country as intentionally designed to exclude them. Inclusion is what liberal democracies were supposed to accomplish from the outset. I know we’ve moved on, significantly, from the days of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, but surely there’s more life left in our system than would be acknowledged by a Friedrich Nietzsche – democracy, communitarianism, all better than his aristocratic Ubermensch exclusivity. Even the new postliberalism acknowledges its debt to many of those earlier traditions of liberalism. Let’s not go backwards – let’s consume the information calories we need to keep moving forward. But let it be a joint enterprise, don’t leave it to the other guy – especially not the guy whose only skill is his ability to entertain us! (He’s not even that entertaining after a while.)
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 