This post was originally published on December 31, 2008, and its first incarnation can be found here.
It's intended to express a paradox. The blogosphere and the Internet generally obviously have enormous power to bring together natural allies. But it seems that they can also separate them more than they would be separated if their contact were in-person. This is probably a little bit like the fact that labor-saving devices for housewives simply raise the bar for the cleanliness of our houses. In the same way, the opportunity to talk so much to so many people makes us feel that we have to talk to so many people about so many things, revealing all our opinions. Nor is this just a comment on the phenomenon of giving "too much information" about one's personal life. There can be an ideological parallel. Perhaps it's somewhat useful not to know every detail of our friends' political, theological, and ideological lives, either.
Anyway, readers are invited to comment anew, especially those who have not seen the post before and those who have new insights on how we can counter the sad tendency of the blogosphere to separate natural allies.
***************************************************************************************************
I was reflecting the other day on the fact that the blogosphere tends to draw attention to every difference of opinion among people--I was thinking of conservatives, specifically--who are naturally close allies and who in person would either not know about these differences or brush them off. And I was wondering why this happens.
The obvious answer, and probably the true one, is just simply that the blogosphere is all about opinions; one of the main things bloggers do is to write opinion pieces, and the main thing commentators do is to comment on them, so naturally we find out everybody's opinions on every topic under the sun, including those that sub-divide the world of political and even theological conservatives.
But at the risk of sounding like a softie, I sometimes think this is a bit of a shame.
Here is Joe: Joe is strongly pro-life. He's interested in theology and knows a lot about it. He's Presbyterian (say). He loves old books and Tolkien. He thinks American culture is going to hell in a handbasket (like all good conservatives). He staunchly opposes the homosexual agenda. He has three adorable kids, one of them handicapped, and one of his hobbies (besides reading old books) is bookbinding.
And Jim, who "met" Joe on a blog and shares all these things with him (except he has two kids and has never tried bookbinding), thinks of him not as "that really interesting guy I talked to at the pro-life banquet last week" but as "that idiot who tried to tu quoque me in a discussion of Arminianism."
I mean, it's a shame.
These guys would be good friends if they lived in the same town and had met there first. Their families would get together, and they would probably drink beer together, or whatever it is they both like to drink. But now they are at a minimum annoyed with each other and have being annoyed with each other as their chief thought upon considering each other.
It occurs to me that one source of this phenomenon is the fact that in the blogosphere we assume that silence gives consent, while we do not assume this in the same way when we are talking face to face. A month ago or so, we were out having dinner with a good friend and his family. He began talking about President Bush's legacy and began advocating the idea that we have been "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." I mean, he believed in it pretty much literally. I grumbled later in private, "You'd think there were only two hundred terrorists in the whole world, and we're keeping them all busy in Mosul." But in person, I only said something about the importance of preventing terrorist attacks on American soil by way of intelligence work. I also mentioned the unfortunate fact that the Bush administration has cracked down on domestic attempts by people in the intelligence agencies to speak the truth about jihad. (Commentators with strong opinions on the Iraq war and Islam, please note: This is an example. Any attempt to make the thread a discussion of the Iraq war will be mercilessly quelled. By me.) The interesting thing is that I'm quite sure he could tell that I didn't agree with what he was saying. I'm told that I am no poker player, and my change of subject and failure actively to agree with what he was saying made it evident that I wasn't on board with his statement that we were being "kept safe" by "fighting them over there." Body language and change of subject did the whole job. Silence did not give consent.
But there's no body language in the blogosphere. And we're not getting together just to talk about anything. If one comments in a thread, one is (rightly) expected not to change the subject. So there is a much more understandable idea that silence gives consent and that if you comment in a thread but do not disagree with what the main post says, you probably agree with the main post. There are many fewer ways of indicating polite disagreement while maintaining a positive social atmosphere among friends.
I have no real moral to draw from this. It seems to me that the problem, if it is a problem, may be an intractable feature of the medium. And I'm not saying we should all ditch the blogosphere. I've been immeasurably enriched by knowing many people in the blogosphere, including those with whom I have disagreements.
Nor do I have any strict formula by which to decide which people are really, at heart, my "natural friends" regardless of our other disagreements, though I tend to think that the whole range of pro-life issues makes a pretty good start.
But I would just remind my quarrelsome self: If you met Joe in person, you might very well like him very much. Even if he is a darned Calvinist and did try that stupid tu quoque.
Comments (19)
Oh goody. Since you haven't disagreed with my thought that the Pope has authority to speak definitively on matters of faith, I know that you agree with me......NOT. ;-)
It is true, we do sometimes sharpen our swords most for people with whom our differences are very small in the grand scheme of things. But this does sometimes happen in real life too. As a Protestant I'll bet you have seen more of this phenomenon than I: a small congregation that thinks alike on 98% eventually divides over a difference in that remaining 2%, probably with hard feelings. Catholics don't usually do that, instead they simply go to the next parish over. That might not be any better morally speaking, though.
Actually, lots of small groups never survive a first full-scale disagreement. They simply dissolve the group, either formally or de facto because nobody agrees to keep meeting.
I had to do some pretty hard work on this problem with a homeschool group, and I recall some tentative conclusions I made. One of the reasons we get together and begin to form a community is an agreement of goals or an agreement of perspective. This initial process is exactly the basis of the formation of friendships. But in making true friends we winnow through the people whose views are somewhat like ours, and those who are not wholly in agreement we hold at partial arms length and become only sort-of-friends. This typically occurs over a long time, because in real life you are not only exchanging deep ideas of opinion and principle, you are also doing activities that are of mutual interest that absorb a lot of attention and energy. (In a larger group, the dynamic is a little different, because it is literally impossible to spend the kind of one-on-one personal time with each member to form true deep friendships with the whole group.)
I think that online, the amount of time it takes to winnow through acquaintances and decide someone is only an at-arms-length friend is shorter because you are not also spending time doing activities. All you are doing is exchanging ideas. Also, since the only activity is that of exchanging ideas, there is little opportunity to build up other bases of trust and respect, like you would seeing hard work, dedication, prudence, and flexibility in action. The relationships are as a result rather one-dimensional, and that puts a lot of pressure on full agreement of ideas.
Posted by Tony | March 4, 2012 10:02 PM
I know that's true, and I know it's to some extent true of me, but I puzzle over it and wonder to what extent it _should_ be true. I mean, I have some very, very dear friends with whom I am not wholly in agreement. Heck, I would have _no_ very dear friends if I had to hold everybody at arm's length with whom I wasn't wholly in agreement. And that can even be on fairly important things--certain aspects of theology, for example. I have close friends who are rabidly anti-Catholic, and I disagree with them quite strongly when they opine that Catholics aren't going to heaven. I wouldn't say that's an unimportant difference of opinion, but I just don't argue with them about it. Nor do I (on that ground alone) hold them at arm's length. By the same token, I don't want to say that my differences of opinion with my close Catholic friends are unimportant, yet I don't think those differences cause me to hold them at arm's length, either.
I suppose one really is put up against the wall when one considers a question like, "Would I encourage my child to marry a person with these opinions?" That'll separate things into levels (vital and non-negotiable, pretty darned important, important-but-can-hopefully-be-worked-around, provides good fodder for lively but friendly discussion among mature people) real fast.
But for, say, joining together in some endeavor like a home schooling group or a blog, it's a little different. To put it baldly, you may well become very close to these people, but you aren't going to marry any of them.
Exactly. I think that's sad, too. I don't know what can be done about it, though. Perhaps this would be one thing: Watch the person in action in the blogosphere and discover things about his character that go beyond his ideas. You may discover that a person has some suite of characteristics you admire: Stable, patient, honest, loyal. Or fiery-tempered but honorable, brave, and generous. Etc. And then give credit for that and allow that to weigh in the balance against some difference of opinion that arises.Posted by Lydia | March 4, 2012 10:19 PM
Agreed with the general gist of this post. And frankly I can be a pretty snarky guy in general in these conversations.
I think part of the problem is that the process of finding 'allies' is difficult, when one seemingly common development in organizations (particularly conservative ones) is the presence of people who disagree on many fundamentals, but who try to bill themselves as allies. I think "focus" is one possible solution. Granted, it's not going to be as simple as that, but the more topics are covered in any gathering, the more opportunities there are for a petty conflict to spin out of control.
Posted by Crude | March 4, 2012 11:50 PM
I think this is due to the fact that "conservatism" is really an umbrella term that encompasses a number of factions which don't even work from many of the same basic first principles.
It's also been my experience that when push comes to shove, even most social conservatives aren't really socially conservative. For example, I've met very few that believe that a husband's leadership in his family really is as Christ's is over the church or that people who get no fault divorces should be excommunicated from their church unless they agree to celibacy. They can vaguely tell you why homosexuality is wrong, but damned if they can articulate let alone support what their own great grandparents would have called "marriage" between a man and a woman.
Posted by Mike T | March 5, 2012 9:37 AM
Mike T, I'm afraid you're exemplifying what I'm talking about. Grump, grouse, and grumble, and "I'm more consistent and intelligent about all of this than all others who call themselves conservative." God help my fictional character Joe if he ever runs into you on the blogosphere. Would you even become good friends with him in person?
Posted by Lydia | March 5, 2012 10:01 AM
The internet is all about talk and opinions, and it's plain that everyone who posts and comments has an high opinion of his own opinions. Those who don't are lurkers. We don't even know who they are.
Posted by The Continental Op | March 5, 2012 11:56 AM
What I'm pointing to is the tendency of many "conservatives" to actually not be conservative when pushed on it. You think I am merely doing ideological grousing when in fact, I've actually come to this realization by talking to many of the "conservatives" I know in person and realizing that they simply like the rhetoric but factually oppose the implementation of it in practice. For example, they will talk a day long about how important the family is but actually support things like no fault divorce which have a demonstrable, proven record of destroying the very things they go on and on about supporting in the abstract.
I am not kvetching about conservatives supporting divorce and remarriage for particular causes which may or may not be biblical, but rather wholesale abandonment of principles on things like marriage, economy, the constitution, etc.
Depends on which side of the Calvinist line he falls on: is he part of the Holy Rolling Country Club or he is a normal Christian?
Posted by Mike T | March 5, 2012 12:24 PM
There's times I wonder when reading this blog if you actually have original thoughts of your own. You have a tendency to come across at times as nothing but a puppet for Vox Day, just repeating his beliefs and arguments.
Posted by Monkey Boy | March 5, 2012 1:48 PM
You know what's ironic about this accusation? The fact that you seem to think you're so knowledgeable about both of our views on politics and religions and yet you don't realize that Vox Day and I have virtually nothing in common on religion. I'll give you a hint: our first area of disagreement is on the trinity!
Perhaps the reason I tend to loathe Calvinists comes from having actually been a Calvinist myself, having been surrounded by Calvinists and seen first hand what a f#$%ed up belief system it is, to say nothing of getting tired of them jumping through logical hoops like a crack-addled monkey with its ass on fire trying to explain how God is not the author of evil in a world of double predestination.
Posted by Mike T | March 5, 2012 2:07 PM
Oh, golly, golly, golly. Mike, you just keep on going, like the Energizer Bunny.
Okay, we are _not_ going to debate Calvinism in this thread. But I cannot help asking: Is this not a perfect illustration of what I was talking about? I even used Arminianism and Calvinism as an example in the main post!
Posted by Lydia | March 5, 2012 3:24 PM
Ironically, you can thank me going off caffeine for that.
I am probably not a good comparison here because I am an ex-Calvinist.
Posted by Mike T | March 5, 2012 3:56 PM
And yet you have only started bringing up Calvinism on this site when Vox started his posts a while back. You done the same thing when Vox started to criticize free trade, you came on here repeating his arguments. Not to mention all the little ideas and observations of his that you repeatedly use in debates here.
Posted by Monkey Boy | March 5, 2012 4:03 PM
I think one way of getting Lydia's point, Mink, is this: fine, you're an ex-Calvinist. But I'll bet you that many Calvinists still hold plenty of views and opinions you yourself would share. And there are ways and places to argue against Calvinism, rather than pushing that issue to the forefront on all topics. Would you be willing to set aside your differences on Calvinism to make common cause with people over another issue (I don't know your politics - choose one at random)?
If not, I think that may well be a mistake. I disagree strongly with mormons on a variety of theological topics, but if they're at the pro-life march with me (and assuming, of course, they aren't pushing mormonism there, beyond saying 'we are mormons, and we're committed to life'), I'm not going to go at them. And even when I do go at them, I'm going to be as civil as possible. I say this as someone who can go off and get snarky at times.
Posted by Crude | March 5, 2012 4:07 PM
Yes, and also: I don't think myself that Calvinism ought to be so overwhelmingly important that one couldn't toss back a friendly beer (or whatever) and be good friends with a Calvinist with whom one shared a lot of other issues, goals, interests, commitments, and who was personally admirable.
Posted by Lydia | March 5, 2012 7:12 PM
And apologies for the 'Mink'. I meant Mike. Typo, and typing too fast.
Posted by Crude | March 5, 2012 8:52 PM
I can't resist linking this. From one of my favorite Christian humor sites. (Warning, they're Calvinists. But very funny.)
http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/7412
Posted by Lydia | March 5, 2012 10:25 PM
Monkey Boy,
A simple Google search on this blog and mine would prove you're wrong on Calvinism, free trade and other issues. Of course, it takes more effort to do your homework than throw out half-assed insults.
Crude and Lydia,
I was referring to the culture of the Calvinist churches my wife and I have known. The most breathtakingly holier than thou Christians we have known were Calvinists.
Posted by Mike T | March 6, 2012 6:57 AM
I'd just add one thing to the post: Maybe even more important than the Internet assumption that "silence implies consent" is the Internet tendency towards "consent implies silence." This was probably more true on Usenet than in blog comments, but it's there even in the most "Me too" blog forums, relative to face-to-face communication. Posting a comment saying, "I agree" was seen as a "waste of bandwidth" on Usenet. While it seems acceptable in blog forums, it's nothing compared to nodding your head in agreement (as opposed to acknowledgement), along with all the other body language, when someone is talking.
Posted by Aaron | March 6, 2012 10:24 AM
A good approach to this is found, i think, in Credenda/Agenda's title page:
" Our statement of faith describes our doctrinal editorial policy; it does not define our boundaries of fellowship."
Posted by Respectabiggle | March 13, 2012 8:00 AM