Can I attempt to paint a different narrative?
Our lives are driven by narrative in ways we don't even realize. I suspect in another 50 years, psychologists will have a much better understanding of how the story we create about the events around us affects our moods, our desires, even potentially our ethics in ways we're only beginning to understand. I'll blog more about this later, most likely (I can't help it, ok???) but...I digress.
Narrative. What NPR and other members of the media are building, without perhaps realizing how much they're participating in it, is the narrative that Americans have never been more divided than we are right now. The idea seems logical. When you read the vitriol on social media you can't help but recoil in horror seeing mutual friends lob bombs at each other and the situation only seems to be getting worse. It's right there in front of you, virtually every time you long onto the Internet.
People SEEM to be getting ever more entrenched in their positions and it appears there is little hope of getting people to compromise on anything any more, not in 2016.
And so...a story. From our collective past.
It's January 21, 1861. Two months earlier, in November of 1860, Abraham Lincoln had been elected president - for reference, he hadn't won a single southern state in the election. And now two months after the election, word has spread that several southern Senators will be making an announcement on the Senate floor.
With the Senate chamber and galleries around it packed with onlookers, Senator David Yulee of Florida takes the Senate floor to announce his resignation from the Senate. Stephen Mallory, also of Florida, goes next and does the same. They are followed moments later by Benjamin Fitzpatrick and Clement Clay, both Senators from Alabama, who also resign. And finally, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi takes the floor. Instead of an impassioned argument, Davis simply states why he's resigning; Mississippi had become convinced the Union was depriving it of its basic rights as a sovereign state. And finally, Davis ends with the following: "...it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."
He is met by silence.
Then, a burst of applause follows, mixed with...weeping, at least among some members of the gallery who realize the chance to maintain the Union peacefully is almost certainly gone. There will eventually be EITHER a Union, or two separate states - but not before war. Most likely, not before many deaths.
A nation can't get much more divided than the U.S. was during the Civil War. It would cost the U.S. three percent of its population of about 31 million. If a similar event occurred today, the U.S., with a current population around 320 million, would sacrifice some ten million people.
Ten million. For comparison, it's estimated that World War II claimed around 419,000 lives; World War I around 117,000.
And can you imagine the spectacle if five U.S. Senators all took the floor on the same day to announce they were resigning? Especially if the resignations meant their individual states desired to secede from the United States...an act of treason...it would be mass chaos, and we wouldn't see anything else on the news for weeks.
So, back to today - and here's the thing. The narrative we're using to describe the world we see is that America is becoming more and more divided, and we think this because we see more and more disagreement, primarily in the media. Social media, to be sure, but also in the news. We see politicians - a tiny, statistically insignificant proportion of our population - shouting at each other from across the ideological aisle and we think we're a nation that's never been more divided. We see ourselves in those politicians.
But allow me to try a different narrative. The story? The one of a nation divided? It couldn't be more wrong.
Rather than primarily being a nation of people who can't get along with each other, I would suggest we're a society that's simply trying to figure out how to appropriately use the abundance of technology available to us. In the past, if you had an opinion or thought on your mind, you talked to your spouse about it. Or your neighbor. Or your coworkers. But in all these cases, you communicated as humans were designed to: face to face.
Now, however, when we have an opinion, the opportunity is available to state that opinion loudly and proudly through the use of technology. This isn't bad; instant communication is potentially life-saving.
However, the technology calls for us to rethink how often and in what manner we should be communicating. In essence, the technology is DRIVING not only how we communicate, but WHAT we're saying (this is another blog post, so enough said for now). I realize a thousand people have already parsed out what I'm saying in much greater detail in a thousand different PhD theses, but...the average person never sees that form of communication.
I would ask you to consider this idea as you connect via social media; we're not a divided nation, we're a nation in transition, and change is always difficult. But we'll get there. We're getting there, slowly, and with the three steps forward/two steps back approach, but still progressing.
Finally, I'd like to leave you with a quote from Brene Brown that constantly inspires me:
"When we deny the story, it defines us.
When we own the story, we can write a brave new ending."
Rather than passively allowing the media to convince us we're divided, let's embrace the idea that we haven't collectively mastered social media and that's okay. We just need to give it some time and some thought to get it right.
Peace and blessings to you all - thank you for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment