Who Benefits From Our Increased Social Fragmentation?
Cable television and satellite radio stations have been praised for providing greater choice and criticised for the fragmentation of our societies. New social media apps and websites allow this choice/fragmentation to reach new levels. History Future Now briefly looks back at how this technology developed and its result on social behaviour then asks a question: how does this affect our democracies?
The history of how the radio and then television became widespread and subsequently commercialised is fascinating. In the US broadcasting was always commercial, paid for by advertising. In the UK, private radio stations were gradually subsumed into one national, British, broadcasting corporation. The BBC model is an interesting one. Independently run, yet answerable to the State. Paid for not through advertising, but by the public through a non-voluntary levy referred to as a TV License. In the US, television evolved into three major networks, ABC, NBC and CBS plus a public (state) funded broadcasting service, PBS. In the UK, the BBC evolved into a number of sub channels, a semi commercial channel, ITV, was added and then a more commercial channel, Channel 4 came later. What all of these channels had in common was that they were national channels, focused on a broad section of society. They needed to be politically neutral and to reflect and amplify mainstream social norms and values.
The advent of cable television and satellite television changed this dynamic, resulting in an explosion of new channels. These media outlets evolved to fill the very specific needs, tastes and viewing habits of individuals, with a strategy to target focused advertising to the demographic niches. News, which had been hereto rather fact based, with the occasional opinion piece, was repackaged as entertainment with highly opinionated news programme producers and presenters using cable news to push a particular political angle. All of this is not new, and has been written about before.
What is more interesting is the effect of social media which is taking this move towards personalised targeting of news to an extreme level. The process started years ago with services such as Google Alerts. These alerts once requested would send you a list of news stories every day or hour (depending on your needs) about a particular subject that interested you. But this method was, in effect, a crude way of searching for specific terms on a specific schedule. Many people who never got around to updating their preferences would have articles hitting their email inboxes in which they no longer interested.
Social media sites such as Stumble Upon, Reddit, Flipboard and Facebook are making it even easier for you to find stories that “people like you” want to read. The more you read of a certain type of article the more frequently that kind of article will appear in your Stumble Upon or Flipboard selection. This is more intuitive than the Google Alerts approach as it does not require you to enter a specific search term. Your prior choices dictate which articles you will receive, articles that will interest you personally more than anything else. If you have a particular interest in 18th century crochet patterns, for example, intuitive targeting is a perfect way to receive subject matter ad infinitum. Equally, if you are politically inclined to think that gay marriage is good, (or bad) or that higher taxes for the rich is good (or bad), you will be fed articles that support that particular view.
So what impact does this targeted media have on democracy? There are clearly benefits to this great fragmentation. One result is that your particular interest can be sated by receipt of programmes and articles that addresses issues that really concern or interest you. You suddenly realise that you are not alone and that your opinions are echoed by numbers of like-minded people. The realisation gives one confidence to push for your particular agenda into a wider society.
However, your particular views may be amplified in an echo chamber of like-minded thoughts. Access only to self-selective arguement can reduce the chance that you will hear about opposing opinions for a particular issue. Chances are that your knowledge of an issue will have been pre-filtered before you receive the information. When the opinions of controversial views intrude you may consider their expressed opinions as odd, crazy views. Since these opinions appear to be so different to the ones that you hold, the holders of these views must be either intellectually retarded, at best, or simply evil, at worst.
In the US, this wild variance of fervently held opinions has reached such levels that the proper functioning of civil society is impeded. The only time that one group is likely to hear the differing opinions of other groups is during elections for political office. In this period there is a lot of shouting, and very little listening.
Arguably, there are now so many interest groups that social cohesion has been fragmented. The extreme diversity of opinion makes it hard to achieve any form of broad consensus on matters that affect everyone. Gaining enough broad political support for a minority interest agenda becomes increasingly unlikely as a result.
So who does benefit from this fragmentation?
The Romans had a maxim of divide et impera – divide and rule. They applied it to territories that they had conquered by splitting the lands into smaller parts with parochial leaders who would squabble amongst themselves.
In our increasingly divided society someone is benefiting from this chaos.
Who?
