Blanket Statements on social media
A Catalyst for Polarization and a Threat to Constructive Conversation
Social media has undoubtedly transformed the way we communicate and interact with one another. With its widespread reach and influence, it has become a powerful platform for sharing ideas, voicing opinions, and fostering connections. However, there's a dark side to this digital revolution: the pervasive use of blanket statements to shortcut critical thinking and derail conversation. These sweeping, often oversimplified claims are contributing to the deterioration of productive conversations, the erosion of nuanced understanding, and the deepening of societal divisions.
Blanket statements are statements that make broad generalizations or sweeping assumptions about groups of people, issues, or concepts. They often begin with phrases like "all," "every," "never," or "always," and contain phrases like “that is all that needs to be said,” “end of conversation,” and “there, I said it!” These expansive but limiting statements have become increasingly common on social media platforms. From politics and social issues to pop culture and personal beliefs, people regularly resort to these all-encompassing declarations to express their views and rally support. One of the most significant problems with blanket statements is that they oversimplify complex issues. Social, political, and cultural phenomena are often multifaceted, and blanket statements fail to acknowledge this complexity and the nuances that go along with these issues. This oversimplification hinders our ability to address the root causes of problems and develop effective solutions. It fosters a black-and-white mentality that ignores the various shades of gray that make up reality.
Social media algorithms tend to show users content that aligns with their existing beliefs and preferences. When users encounter blanket statements that resonate with their views, they are more likely to react positively and engage with them. This confirmation bias reinforces existing opinions and discourages open-mindedness. As a result, people become more entrenched in their ideological bubbles, further polarizing society. Blanket statements dehumanize and marginalize entire groups of people by reducing them to simplistic caricatures. This not only stifles empathy and compassion but also fosters an "us versus them" mentality. Such rhetoric impedes the development of understanding and empathy between diverse groups and can lead to social fragmentation.
Social media platforms are rife with online confrontations, and blanket statements only fuel this fire. When users make sweeping claims about a particular group or issue, they are more likely to incite heated debates, personal attacks, and emotional outbursts. This escalation inhibits meaningful dialogue and discourages cooperation. Blanket statements discourage critical thinking and thoughtful discourse. Instead of engaging in meaningful conversations, users often resort to quick, one-sided arguments that fail to explore the nuances of the topic at hand. This trend erodes the quality of online discussions and undermines the potential for constructive dialogue.
To mitigate the harmful effects of blanket statements on social media, individuals and platforms can take the following steps:
Foster Media Literacy: Promote media literacy programs that help users recognize the dangers of blanket statements and discern between credible information and misinformation.
Encourage Empathy: Remind users to approach discussions with empathy and an open mind. Encourage them to consider diverse perspectives and engage in civil, respectful conversations.
Fact-Check: Platforms should implement tools to verify the accuracy of information shared, helping to prevent the spread of false and misleading blanket statements.
Promote Nuance: Encourage nuanced discussions by highlighting the complexity of issues and acknowledging different viewpoints.
Diverse Content: Social media algorithms can be adjusted to expose users to a more diverse range of content, promoting exposure to different perspectives.
Blanket statements on social media are indeed contributing to the deterioration of constructive conversations, the polarization of people, and the undermining of empathy and understanding. It's essential for users and social media platforms to recognize the harm caused by these sweeping declarations and actively work towards fostering a more informed, empathetic, and open digital environment. It is only then that we may hope to address the divisions and polarizations in our society.
Bio: Brian Sankarsingh is a Trinidadian-born Canadian immigrant who moved to Canada in the 1980s. He describes himself as an accidental poet, with a passion for advocacy and a penchant for prose, an unapologetic style, he offers his poetry as social and political commentary.
What an important topic to raise. “Blanket statements discourage critical thinking and thoughtful discourse.” And no matter how sincere and well-intentioned I may be, if my thinking is limited or compromised in some way, that threatens the soundness of the conclusions I arrive at.
“deterioration of constructive conversations,” “polarization of people,” and “social fragmentation.” Yet even with such highly concerning outcomes, we see mainstream media routinely using a variety of limiting statements and biased terms. These unhelpful statements and terms get picked up by the public, gain traction through widespread use across social media, skewed perspectives get reinforced by the algorithms, and on it goes.
Really appreciate how this piece captures not just the details of the problem (which it explains very well), but also the gravity of the problem and sense of urgency to it.
So much truth in this article Brian. Few things are ever black or white. Unfortunately, examining the many shades of grey takes effort, patience and a willingness to actually lift the blanket and take a peak at what might lie beneath. Unfortunately, I think many are frightened by the truths that such an examination might reveal. When their biases, programming, fears, and insecurities are challenged, the confrontation can prove overwhelming. Many, just can't bring themselves to face it.
Your article reminds me of something I read a few years ago. Much like social media algorithms that direct like-minded people towards one another, self-imposed policies can sometimes do the same. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, it became politically unpopular for US Congressmen to move their families to Washington and be so far from their constituents as had always been the case. So, House members started leaving their families behind and would travel back and forth between home and Washington. This meant that how they spent their time in Washington became more about planning their next campaign and building their political profiles. They became more isolated and partisan. No longer did they spend their off hours playing golf or attending dinners with their opponents. Their kids no longer attended the same schools or belonged to the same Boy Scout or Girl Guide troop. In short, it became easier and easier not to see party members sitting across the floor as human beings sharing many of the same problems, concerns and fears as themselves. The result has been an increase in ideological partisanship, where an "us vs them" mentality pervades Washington, and generalizations and blanket statements rule the day. Those advocating for bipartisan cooperation are now in the minority on both sides while polarization has increased dramatically.
Your article is an excellent reminder that it is in everyone's best interest to take steps to adjust simplistic algorithms, change poorly thought out policies, and practice empathy. Let's engage more in nuanced discussions that highlight complex issues and acknowledge and respect different perspectives. The steps you mention are a good place to start if we hope to mitigate bipartisanship, polarization, and learned bias. Thank you Brian.