As I’ve discussed before, much of the evils of the present can be laid to the fact that a great many people have just stopped listening to one another. Instead of discourse (let alone “civil”), on almost every issue, we’ve become divided into two warring echo-chambers. This is as true of abortion as it is of something as seemingly clear-cut as prescription medications (where Ivermectin is, depending on your “side”, either a “horse de-wormer” for rednecks, or the covid miracle-drug of the ages).
These should be issues that we can have fact-based discussions about. But even the notion of “fact” is a politically-charged shouting match. “Fact-checkers” engage in systematic lying. “Science” is increasingly opinion, where “fact” is nothing more than whatever someone feels most strongly.
At the root of all of this is “framing”.
If you’re a movie buff, you’ve probably seen a picture of a director, thumbs joined together, index fingers forming a square, showing the camera operator how to frame the shot.
The camera can’t see everything, right? The art of directing is framing every shot so the audience sees exactly what the director wants them to see.
Of course, a certain amount of “framing” is impossible to elude. We are all at least somewhat prey to what Robert Anton Wilson called “reality tunnels”. None of us is omniscient, so, to an extent, everything we “know” is viewed through a kind of tunnel.
This idea shouldn’t be taken to its extreme: otherwise we end up in solipsism. The “my truth” fallacy that’s so popular today. We have to agree that there is at least some degree of objective fact, otherwise we can never agree about anything.
But certain unscrupulous actors cleverly exploit our “reality tunnels” to frame information — to their advantage.
Often arguments end up unfairly skewed by the information they include or leave out. If you understand how framing works, you’ll have a better chance of seeing through weak arguments and appreciating good ones.
For instance, opponents of abortion will frame their argument as “killing babies”. Which is an argument (almost) no-one wants to defend. But the argument is “framed” so that a foetus of, say, 15 weeks gestation, is treated as exactly the same as a newborn baby. On the opposite side of the argument, a near-term baby is “framed” as being no different to a “parasite” and “a bundle of cells”.
Then there is the perplexing, to many of us, continued popularity of socialism. Who on earth, given socialism’s unbroken record of failure and misery, could support such an ideology?
The answer is that socialism has been very cleverly framed by its proponents.
Socialism, we are told, is morally superior because it makes people “more equal.” Those who have more than their fair share have to give it back. What could possibly be wrong with leveling the playing field? Who’s against equality?
When framed that way, socialism is made to seem the only moral choice. So if you’re opposed to it, you’re framed as regressive, selfish, and pretty much a jerk.
To be fair, opponents of socialism are framing, too. Although the opponents’ framing is slightly more grounded in logic: socialism is taken to mean what it means, rather than falsely framing social welfare systems as “socialism”.
Of course, a proponent will dismiss that as my “framing”. Which is fair enough, but note: we can only begin to have a discussion when we acknowledge the existence of framing.
Now that you know what framing is, you’ll be able to spot it. That’s half the battle. Say something like, “Do you think that’s the whole story? Let me suggest another way of looking at it.”
For instance, say to a socialist that you agree that everyone should have a fair go and economic opportunity: so let’s discuss how that might be achieved. How it has been achieved, historically.
Set some basic ground rules. Bury the insults: no name calling. General statements are fine, but they need to be backed up with examples. Make it clear that you’re prepared to hear their arguments. In turn, they have to commit to hear yours.
Facebook
Okay, good luck with that. As we all know, the default setting these days seems too often to be to shout and scream the instant anyone disagrees with you. But, if you persist with calm, reasoned debate, at least you’re going to come out the better person. Even some people who don’t like you and don’t agree with you are going to notice.