Never have so many said so much. Thanks to the Internet and social media, we have not just democratized comment and perspective; we have universalized them.
We have transcended the idea of “15 minutes of fame” for some to 1.5 minutes of fame to multitudes, all of which is simultaneous: a veritable pile-on of perspectives.
What does all of this mean? What does it accomplish, and how do we all benefit from it? One can argue that it’s all sensory or sensibility overload; a cacophony of voices intended to provide some perspective and some self-gratification (if not self-aggrandizement) and, above all, to delegitimize the perspective of the “other.”
Or, we can take a more benign view of it, that we now live in a world that I would call “an autodidact’s delight.” Here, we have the opportunity to expose ourselves to myriad perspectives and assess for ourselves what seems most intelligent, appropriate and resonant.
That is a powerful and uplifting vision—a self-directed intellectual tour through the world of ideas and perspectives. But how realistic is that? How many of us have the time, inclination, curiosity, and, yes, capacity to embark on this journey?
There is an inherent tension between the interests of those providing the perspectives and those who are partaking of them. As a commentator, I would love to have people from different points of view read what I have to say. I often get comments on various pieces of mine, on various sites, and am always pleased, ironically, to see the quizzical or critical ones.
At least these folks have taken the time to cast aspersions on what I had to say. Of course, there are the demonizers who seem to know more about my ancestry than I do. But, on balance, I am pleased when I have put something in front of people that has engendered thought and response.
From the individual reader’s point of view, what would seem to be most beneficial is the opposite, knowing where to find a particular point of view. It’s like going to the mall and knowing which store has the particular idea you are shopping for.
Does breaking out of the silo of preaching to the choir mean that an outlet, or even an individual content provider, needs to be balanced? I would hope not. That is a formula for pablum and mush.
However, bursting through can mean following the Mishnaic example set in the debates between the schools of rabbis Hillel and Shammai. Our sages say that almost invariably Jewish law follows Hillel’s interpretations, in no small part because of their respect for the perspectives of Shammai; respect that included providing the thoughtful and understanding interpretation of Shammai as part of its own exegesis.
In other words, there was conviction without disparagement of the other perspective. In Israel, the country is largely split on many political issues. There is, however, a broad underlying consensus about the nature, mission and essence of the country. Our saner and smarter voices recognize and do not seek to delegitimize those who support their political opponents.
There is a larger lesson here for the wider world of politics and issues. Calling your opponents and their supporters “deplorable” is not a game-winning strategy. Understanding where the other side comes from, while disagreeing, even strongly, with their resulting conclusions and prescriptions, can change hearts and minds.
One of the regrettable but inevitable implications of the current state of commentary, polemics and ordinary communication is the loss of connection. It sounds ironic since we reach out to so many people.
But we are not speaking with people, we are speaking to them or at them. Not having an interlocutor means we need not take anyone’s sensibilities into account. There is no tone of voice, just voice.
We lose the social restraints that come from a conversation, a personal contact. It is a mere hop, skip and a jump from loss of contact with the other guy to outright demonization of him.
Breaking out of the silo first means understanding that you are in one. It means understanding that a bigger audience is out there, and that they may be willing to reconsider and re-evaluate if respectfully presented with other viewpoints.
Hillel’s disputation track record tells us that there is every good reason to assume that there is great potential in seeing the bona fides of the other guy.
Hillel, I suspect, would tell us: Don’t pander and don’t fear your own perspective. Precisely because of your confidence, you can be gracious and empathetic with other points of view, all of which you disagree with.
If you know where you are coming from, you will be able to reach out to others and understand where they are coming from.
Let’s turn silos into sieves.