February 26th, 2020 | Written By - Abby Mcgowan '21
It is not a single choice that gets us stuck in a feedback loop. For many, it is considered accidental, unpredicted, or unforseen when embracing their chosen political outlook verges on monomania; however, as WIRED describes for us, “even a critical eye grows less keen the more it is ambushed with one-sided propaganda.” It is nearly unavoidable for those ignorant of its existence to avoid getting trapped in a Political Echo Chamber. First described in relation to the media, an ‘Echo Chamber’ is structured by one’s longstanding “tendency to associate with others similar to oneself in political ideology,” as Boutyline of Stanford Business defines. It is not inherently wrong to associate with those who agree, but the problems arise in a specific order: the Echo Chamber enforces polarization and is followed by the silencing of political minorities.
This is written into the very fabric of society. The algorithms that run social media, the balance sheets of traditional media, and the polls of our politicians all profit by catering to consumer interest. In the past ten years, we have seen this brought to historic new levels, with, as WIRED reminds us, articles not even being seen across the aisle. This disparity both isolates the parties and reinforces pre-existing beliefs. As Sîrbu and Giannotti of New York University discuss, this discrepancy empirically leads to “an increased tendency towards opinion fragmentation [...] [and] increased polarisation of opinions.” As those who agree grow more confined, the opinions escalate towards extremes.
It would be incorrect to assume, though, that this signals unification. The trend towards Echo Chambers occurring is creating a nearly insurmountable divide and while many assume the creation of single-opinion political parties has acted to unify people, it has instead abandoned those who do not conform to the extremes. As NPR’s KQED Radio describes, “We now have two highly ideological parties. [...] The middle is still big. It's about 40 percent of the public. But it has no home in either party.” Those who are not aligned with a major party are considered enemies of democracy, with many going so far as to call moderates and independents ‘authoritarian’ and ‘communist.’ As a result of these Echo Chambers, many have lost bipartisan respect. It is Nanay of Psychology Today who reminds us, “the problem is that we discredit what our political opponents say before hearing it. We dismiss the views at the other end of the political spectrum as immoral and not worth engaging with just because they come from the other side.”
So then, the question becomes, why does it matter? To which I ask you, who have you prematurely disregarded for their disagreement? The answer should be ‘no one.’
I lastly offer you this: the mission of the Laurel Political Review is the sharing of diverse, civil opinions. If you are trying to hear people across the aisle, no matter the direction, start by freeing yourself of a comfortable bubble, even if it means addressing those you believe close minded. If everyone is agreeing, someone is not being heard.
Comments