Democracy in a Digital Age
As those of us in the United States mark the 242nd anniversary of our declaration of independence, of the founding of our nation, it’s perhaps a good time to pause and consider how we continue the ongoing conversation that was begun in 1776.
I can only imagine how the events of the American Revolution might have played out had Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, et. al., been able to text and tweet their way to independence. These “Founding Fathers,” as revered as they are in our cultural memory, were imperfect and flawed beings . . . because they were human beings.
They argued, they called each other names, they fought in duels, they were at times jealous of one another … and while these disagreements were often publicly known, they were not played out in a twenty-four-hour news cycle.
These men were often separated by many miles, taking the time to write long letters explaining their ideas. They waited for days and weeks for messages to be received, processed, thought about, and finally responded to. It’s what allowed for the rich 18th-century database of writings that proclaim the ideals of our nation.
How different their political world was from ours, defined by its instant and impersonal communication. We comment within seconds on the political memes shared by our friends, and often end up engaging in unskillful dialogue with people we’ve never met. And while the ability to connect with millions of people is certainly a gift of our modern age, it also slices away the very personal nature of political discourse.
I’m no Luddite — I’m not suggesting we stop using social media altogether or even that we censor our views and only post cat videos and Candy Crush invitations. But I am suggesting that we be a bit more . . . skillful in our approach.
And I’m happy to share with you a simple mindful practice that I believe will help us keep our friends while trying to influence people on social media: MINDFUL COMMUNICATION.
Mindful Communication
When I teach mindful communication, I draw heavily on the work of Marshall Rosenberg, who developed Non-Violent Communication (which he taught to teachers, employers, and Middle East peace negotiators).
The core premise of nonviolent communication is that everything we do is to meet a fundamental human need. The corollary to this is that we all have the same fundamental needs. These needs include, but are by no means limited to, autonomy, connection, well-being, safety, honesty, meaning, peace, and play.
As different as we may be from people in another political party or another country, we are far more similar than we are different. Human beings everywhere, even the so-called “bad guys,” want ease and stability and love.
We just use different strategies to get there.
So my simple mindful practice for you, as you seek to understand friends or colleagues whose views differ from yours, is to ask yourself “What is the fundamental human need underlying this behavior or this belief?”
Can you see past the strategy this person is using (which may or may not be skillful) to determine their underlying need? Can you acknowledge that your friend who is on the opposite side of the gun control debate from you also has a fundamental need for safety? You may not agree with their strategy, but can you see them as a person with needs similar to yours? As a parent like you, perhaps, who also wants to protect their children?
Ultimately, this practice is about recognizing our common humanity. We all seek the same things, for we all “are created equal.” The beautiful challenge of democracy is to skillfully participate in the sometimes messy process of finding acceptable solutions and strategies for securing our basic, universal rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
This doesn’t mean that all views are correct and all strategies are good. Being nonjudgmental of others does not exclude wisdom and discernment. Facts can be checked, and the very human impact of government policies can be assessed.
I’m certainly not suggesting we stop sharing our political views on social media. As a social studies teacher, I fundamentally believe in the value of civic dialogue, sharing our views when we feel compelled to make change in the world. Democracy is not static; it is an ongoing conversation about how we can live up to our ideals of equality and justice and liberty. I’m just not sure this is the type of discussion we’re having right now.
The word communication comes from the Latin communicare, meaning “to make common.” Communication is the way we take a private experience and make it known, allowing another person to share our experience and understand our point of view.
Perhaps when we post our political memes on social media, we should offer our reasons for sharing them as well.
And, wouldn’t you know, my good old buddy TJ also recognized this when he wrote the first sentence of the document we celebrate this week:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t tweet “Psycho George is a big mean bully. Passed the Stamp Act– sad! We don’t need your tea, we got coffee!”
They framed their justification for rebellion in Enlightenment philosophy, and enumerated several dozen grievances documenting the king’s breach of the social contract. It’s not retweetable (and had FAR more than 280 characters), but it had much greater “reach.”
spotted in the library at my children’s elementary school
Perhaps the clearest description of mindful communication these days comes from the acronym we see posted all over elementary schools, encouraging the youngest among us to THINK before they speak. Can we also THINK before we tweet?
Let’s ask ourselves:
Is what I am about to post…
TRUE? Great place to start. This wonderful Internet gives us a ready tool to fact-check virtually anything. (Try Snopes or FactCheck).
HELPFUL? Is this rhetoric, or is there actual information here that will help people make an informed decision?
INSPIRING? Is there information here that can help people take action to make a situation better?
NECESSARY? Is this important for people to know about?
KIND? There’s a difference between sharing relevant, accurate information about a person or situation that may not be flattering to the person, and below-the-belt name-calling and insult-throwing.
Let’s try this. I still believe we can have our civic dialogue in the most modern of public arenas.
Because dialogue is essential. A central tenet of the Enlightenment philosophy that informs modern democracies is that our opinions are NOT set in stone; if they were, there would be no purpose to the democratic process.
And if we’re mindful while we do this, acknowledging our common needs, and honoring that we can disagree without being disagreeable, we can keep our friends while attempting to influence them, too.
- A Mindful Approach to New Year’s Resolutions - January 13, 2020
- Just This Next Step - December 16, 2019
- WAIT: A Mindfulness Practice for Waiting in Line - December 9, 2019
