Author: Juletsi Zuniga
Plato once said the worst evil that can befall any political society is faction, as it would lead to the dissolution of social har- mony. This ancient issue has modern relevance, as seen in the
socio-political climate of the United States. Founding Father James Madison diagnosed this issue in Federalist Paper 10, where he warned against the dangers of factions while offering practical solutions. The notion of you are either with us or against us pervades contemporary American society. The division between the two main parties has significantly increased over the years, to the point that 66% of Conservative Republicans believe that Democrats’ policies threaten the well-being of the country; policies threaten the well-being of the country, and 50% of Liberal Democrats believe the same about Republicans (“Political Polarization in the American Public”, Pew Research, 1). This level of polarization raises the question: is rec- onciliation or agreement even possible in the United States? The three major Greek Philosophers: Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, reveal the answer to be yes.
In The Republic, Plato defines a faction as a state of disharmony where actions and interests are not aligned for the common good. This disharmony allows a minority or majority to prioritize their interests and cause division in the political sphere. The disharmony to which Plato refers to is present within American politics, as the two major parties and their candidates base their campaigns upon attacking, bashing, and discrediting the other because they see them as the enemy. Investing money in attack ads or using social media to engage with potential voters is becoming progressively common. Instead of promoting principles and values within their parties, the priorities have shifted towards one-sided politics. Most Republicans and Democrats characterize their own party in positive terms such as respect for democracy and honest and ethical governing. Each party believes to be in the right and the other party to be wrong. Thus society finds itself within a Culture War that creates division along the lines of ideologies.
In Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, James Hunter discusses the conflict between those committed to morals of the past and those who prioritize change and flexibility and their corresponding ideologies (“In Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America”, Hunter, 3). These two extremes find them- selves in disagreement due to their conflicting opinions and policy preferences. Social media’s influence on the Culture War has increased the scope of polarization as it has made the flow of information (or, more aptly, misinformation) more accessible to everyone. Although accessibility itself is a positive characteristic of a society, since it allows for individuals to be connected, it can have a polarizing effect on users. Social media allows individuals to share pictures, infographics, links and articles, therefore connecting society at a national level since all these types of social media posts can be posted and shared within seconds. An individual doesn’t have to go through any review or critique of their posts to verify the information and posts they’re sharing, thus increasing their own bias and increasing polarization.
The constant flow of information provided by social me- dia has also caused an increased deficit of attention within peo- ple. New information is perpetually flowing, and thus, individ- uals have little or no time left for contemplation. Because of the lack of time to think, there is an inconsistency within thoughts. Such inconsistency is characterized by people lacking an under- standing of why they think or know things. Rather, they accumulate attachment to a wide range of opinions, and their beliefs become logically inconsistent. This inconsistency of beliefs and values manifests itself in both the political and private spheres, as it can both explain polarization and growing confused identities. People’s thoughts and conceptions are no longer aligned due to overstimulation and overflooding of information and no education on how to handle such stimulus. This is because not all the information that is shared on social media sites is true. Because of the lack of true political information on social media, individuals have little to no time to think about what is true and what is false. Individuals find themselves building “like-mind- ed” online communities to engage in enclave deliberations on particular issues. When individuals engage in discussions within their like-minded communities, they become more exposed to pro-attitude messages and less exposed to counter-attitude information. Therefore they only see information that supports their ideological stance and reinforces their beliefs. Essentially they find themselves, categorically, in echo chambers. Both motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are reinforced within echo chambers Within these echo chambers, individuals limit their ability to reach a common ground within politics due to being exposed to only one kind of information, although it might interfere with one’s ability to filter out bias in information, through reflective thinking and agreements.
Filtering information is key for being able to develop critical thinking and learn to differentiate statements that contain bias or are false. An individual must be willing to be skeptical of all statements and consider their validity in order to seek the truth.Thus philosophy becomes necessary to resolve bias. The like-mindedness prevalent in social media’s online communities is a stark contrast to the one Socrates proposes, as the latter serves to combat polarization while the former actively perpetuates it.
Socrates’ like-mindedness refers to individuals being psychologically similar, thus sharing the same core beliefs with disregard to their “pronounced epistemic and ethical differ- ences among different classes. Thus it serves as an effective way to combat factions from within an individual so that it can be counterattacked in communities. Thus, Socrates’ philosophy serves as a cure for factions in both private and public contexts. Essentially, it targets intrapersonal psychological factions to target interpersonal psychological factions. Therefore, it allows for “the possibility of good, well grounded and virtuous agree- ment” for the common good. This is what Car R. Sunstein refers to as incompletely theorized agreements (“Practical reason and incompletely theorized agreements” Sunstein, 267). Incomplete- ly theorized agreements refer to agreements in general princi- ples. These kinds of agreements are incompletely theorized in the sense that “people who accept the principle don’t need to agree in particular cases” (“Practical reason and incompletely theorized agreements” Sunstein, 267). In other words, Sunstein’s diagnosis provides the opportunity for the development of the Aristotelian concept of political friendship.
According to Aristotle, the concept of political friend- ship denotes a kind of friendship “where the search for utility doesn’t prevent people from displaying other qualities like cooperation, trust and loyalty” (“Between advantage and virtue: Aristotle’s theory of Political Friendship” Irrera, 565–85) This kind of friendship is different from the typical friendship, in the fact that it focuses on shared advantages based on ethical behav- ior. Although this idea may seem difficult to imagine , it is possi- ble. A friendship can be composed of individuals with different characters and political ties while still being grounded on virtue (arete). Aristotle also makes a further key point when he argues that friendship is a very necessary aspect for living well. Nec- essary in the sense that without it, life is impossible and also in the fact that good cannot be or come to be without it (“Between advantage and virtue: Aristotle’s theory of Political Friendship” Irrera, 565–85). In other words, this kind of friendship is based on both virtue and civic responsibility. Citizens have the ability to come together and find common ground without having to go into specifics, thereby creating ambiguous agreements or incom- pletely theorized agreements.
Taken together, these theories prove political reconciliation to be possible. While it may not be an easy path to take, it appears to be the most effective one. Although its path may be arduous, it can be effective in creating a healthy political society. By reflecting upon the ideas of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, the nation can learn to think actively and be skeptical of the material that they are being exposed to in echo chambers through social media, which infects the political sphere. Thus individuals would be more likely to be skeptical and question whether the kind of information that they’re constantly being presented holds any true value. This combined with the idea of Aristotle’s political friendship where individuals regardless of class, race, gender and age can form bonds that rely on compromise for the common good. However the compromise, as Socrates mentions, will be based on a different kind of like-mindedness that doesn’t refer to specific ideological beliefs but rather on basic unspecific principle or virtue.The result according to Plato would then be a society in harmony. Essentially polarization in contemporary America could be resolved through the reflection upon the works of the three major greek philosophers, making social media where individuals can come to an agreement and not find themselves trapped in echo chambers.