Cracking the Code: Breaking Social Media Barriers to Tackle Cultural Issues in America – Unveiling Twitter’s Role

Posted on by Dennis Robbins

Photo courtesy of Brosix.com. 10 Ways to Overcome the Cultural Barriers for Communication in the Workplace. “All in all, cultural diversity can help your company grow and evolve, but only if you make it a pleasant place for all people to work and interact with each other. The only way to fix cultural communication issues is to nurture the ideas of understanding, openness, and embracing differences in your company. This is the starting point, and you should always have it in mind when trying to bridge communication gaps.”
Brosix was founded in 2006 to develop easy-to-use, secure communication tools for home and enterprises.

Introduction:

In recent years, the rise of social media has undeniably revolutionized public discourse in America, offering both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, social media has provided a powerful platform for diverse voices to be heard, breaking down traditional barriers of entry to the public conversation. Individuals who were previously marginalized or overlooked now have the ability to share their perspectives, experiences, and cultural insights with a global audience. This newfound accessibility has contributed to a more inclusive and diverse public discourse, allowing for a broader range of voices to shape the cultural narrative.

The Ad Council: Social Media’s Impact on Society.

Social media is an undeniable force in modern society. With over half the global population using social platforms, and the average person spending at least two hours scrolling through them every day, it can’t be overstated that our digital spaces have altered our lives as we knew them. From giving us new ways to come together and stay connected with the world around us, to providing outlets for self-expression, social media has fundamentally changed the way we initiate, build and maintain our relationships.

However, alongside the positive aspects, social media has also created a roadblock when it comes to discussing substantive cultural issues. The nature of social media platforms, with their algorithms, limited character counts, and fast-paced nature, often hampers meaningful and in-depth discussions. Complex cultural issues require nuance, context, and a deep exploration of different perspectives, which can be challenging to achieve within the constraints of social media. The platform’s emphasis on instant gratification and the quick consumption of information often leads to superficial engagement, shallow debates, and the oversimplification of complex issues.

Understanding Cultural Wars:

Cultural wars encompass a wide range of ideological conflicts and debates that emerge in society, revolving around deeply held values, norms, and beliefs. These conflicts are often rooted in issues that are central to individuals’ identities and shape the fabric of society. The battlegrounds of cultural wars touch upon areas such as politics, religion, race, gender, sexuality, immigration, and national identity.

Pedro L. Gonzalez, Associate Editor, Chronicles: The Culture War Is the Class War. We Need To Win Both.

There is a perennial claim that the culture war distracts from the economic issues that drive American politics. It’s a point where Democrats and Republicans often find themselves in rare agreement. Many Democrats feel a cultural leftward drift helps their political prospects in the long run, while too many Republican leaders don’t have the stomach for the fight.

But the class and culture wars are not mutually exclusive; they are twins joined in utero. Culture war issues often and at once reflect both the class interest and sincerely held beliefs of liberal elites. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to disentangle these battles.

Religion serves as a fundamental aspect of cultural wars, with debates arising over matters like religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and the extent to which religious beliefs should influence public policy. These discussions reflect the tension between preserving individual liberties and maintaining a secular society that caters to diverse belief systems.

Eliza Rosenberg, Lecturer in Religious Studies: Religion and Culture

Religion and culture are parts of each other. Culture affects religion, and religion affects culture. The same religion can have different forms in different cultures. Within one culture, different religions can take similar forms. And, of course, religion is practiced by people, who are all different.

Race, being a prominent factor in social dynamics, is another focal point of cultural wars. The discussions surrounding race delve into topics like systemic racism, racial equality, affirmative action, and racial representation. These debates highlight the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality, shaping policies and practices aimed at addressing historical and present-day inequities.

Black adults were asked in the survey to assess the current nature of racism in the United States and whether structural or individual sources of this racism are a bigger problem for Black people. About half of Black adults (52%) say racism in our laws is a bigger problem than racism by individual people.

Where the responsibility for reparations lies is also clear for Black Americans. Among those who say the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid, 81% say the U.S. federal government should have all or most of the responsibility for repayment.

–– Pew Research

Gender and sexuality serve as another battleground in cultural wars, where conflicts arise regarding gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender identities. These discussions challenge traditional gender roles, advocate for inclusivity, and address the rights and protections for marginalized gender and sexual minority communities.

The topic of immigration sparks intense debates on cultural identity, national security, economic impact, and humanitarian concerns. Discussions revolve around immigration policies, border control, pathways to citizenship, and the treatment of undocumented immigrants. These debates reflect differing perspectives on the balance between national sovereignty and welcoming diverse cultures.

National identity, encompassing language, history, traditions, and shared values, is a central element in cultural wars. These discussions examine questions of patriotism, multiculturalism, and the preservation of cultural heritage in the face of globalization and societal diversification. Debates often center on immigration, language policies, and the assimilation of diverse populations into the fabric of society.

Overall, cultural wars encapsulate the struggle for power and influence in shaping cultural narratives and policy decisions. The conflicts arising from these discussions reflect the ever-evolving nature of society, as diverse perspectives clash and compete to define the values, norms, and direction of a nation. Although debates would provide societies with an opportunity to critically examine and redefine their cultural foundations, as well as seek paths toward a more inclusive, equitable, and harmonious future, social media does not offer a suitable platform for such discussions to occur.

The Importance of Cultural Discussions:

Open public discussions can take place through various means that foster meaningful dialogue and engagement among participants. Here are some ideas:

Public Forums and Town Halls: Organizing public forums and town hall meetings can provide a physical space for people to gather and openly discuss important societal issues. These events can be moderated to ensure respectful and constructive conversations.

Community Centers and Libraries: Utilizing community centers and libraries as venues for open discussions allows people to come together in a neutral and inclusive environment. These spaces can be utilized to host moderated discussions, panel debates, or interactive workshops.

Public Lectures and Debates: Inviting experts, academics, and thought leaders to deliver public lectures or participate in debates can help stimulate critical thinking and engage the community in lively discussions. These events can be open to the public and encourage audience participation.

Collaborative Online Platforms: While social media may not be ideal for open public discussions, dedicated online platforms can be designed to foster constructive dialogue. These platforms can have strict moderation policies, promote respectful communication, and provide features like threaded discussions and upvoting to prioritize relevant and insightful contributions.

Public Consultations and Surveys: Governments and organizations can conduct public consultations and surveys to gather input from the community on various topics. This allows individuals to express their opinions, provide feedback, and contribute to decision-making processes.

Interfaith and Intercommunity Dialogues: Facilitating dialogues between different religious and cultural communities promotes understanding, empathy, and cooperation. Interfaith dialogues can take place in community centers, places of worship, or through organized events that encourage participants to share their perspectives and engage in respectful conversations.

Education and Awareness Campaigns: Promoting education and awareness around important social issues can help create a foundation for open discussions. Workshops, seminars, and awareness campaigns can provide people with the necessary knowledge and tools to engage in constructive conversations about cultural foundations, equity, inclusivity, and other relevant topics.

By employing these strategies and creating inclusive spaces, societies can facilitate open public discussions that enable critical examination, redefinition, and exploration of paths toward a more inclusive, equitable, and harmonious future.

The Negative Impact of Social Media on Cultural Debates:

While social media platforms provide spaces for dialogue, they often exacerbate the challenges faced in discussing cultural issues:

a) Echo Chambers: Most social media platforms, unfortunately, are not conducive to fostering positive discussions on cultural issues, as they tend to perpetuate echo chambers of opposing points of view. These platforms, with their algorithms and user engagement metrics, often prioritize content that aligns with users’ existing beliefs, reinforcing preconceived notions and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. This phenomenon leads to an echo chamber effect, where individuals are primarily exposed to content that reaffirms their own opinions, resulting in an environment that stifles meaningful dialogue and hinders the potential for constructive exchanges of ideas.

Poynter.org –– Echo chambers: how they’re created and how to avoid them.

The problem is that misinformation thrives in echo chambers. If you only see posts that you agree with, you’re less likely to be critical of false or misleading videos or memes. This is called confirmation bias. When all the posts you see reinforce your point of view, you will not encounter opposing opinions, and you may end up spreading false information.

And sometimes that can be dangerous.

b) Anonymity and Disinhibition: The anonymity provided by social media platforms has proven to be a double-edged sword, creating a lack of accountability that allows individuals to engage in toxic behavior, online harassment, and the spread of misinformation. While anonymity can provide a safe space for individuals to express themselves without fear of reprisal, it also removes the sense of responsibility and consequences that come with face-to-face interactions.

One of the primary issues arising from anonymity on social media is the proliferation of toxic behavior. Shielded by the veil of anonymity, individuals may feel emboldened to engage in cyberbullying, hate speech, and personal attacks. Without facing direct repercussions for their actions, these individuals can target and harass others without remorse, often resulting in severe emotional and psychological harm to the victims.

Furthermore, the absence of accountability facilitated by anonymity contributes to the rampant spread of misinformation on social media. Individuals can create and share false or misleading content without disclosing their true identities, making it difficult to hold them responsible for the accuracy or impact of their posts. This leads to the rapid dissemination of misinformation, which can have far-reaching consequences, such as influencing public opinion, eroding trust in institutions, and exacerbating societal divisions.

c) Oversimplification and Emotional Reactions: The format of social media, characterized by short and concise posts, has inadvertently fostered a culture of oversimplification and emotional reactions, detracting from nuanced and thoughtful discussions. With limited character counts and the desire for quick engagement, users are often compelled to distill complex cultural issues into bite-sized soundbites. Consequently, the depth and intricacies of these topics are sacrificed in favor of simplistic and polarizing statements.

This oversimplification not only fails to capture the complexity of cultural issues but also reinforces existing biases and inhibits the exploration of diverse perspectives. Moreover, the rapid nature of social media interactions encourages knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than measured and reflective responses. This emotionalism can hinder the ability to engage in rational and respectful discourse, leading to further polarization and a lack of understanding between different viewpoints. As a result, the format of social media platforms, while facilitating rapid communication, poses a significant challenge in fostering substantive and meaningful discussions on cultural issues.

d) Confirmation Bias and Filter Bubbles: Social media platforms have inadvertently contributed to the creation of filter bubbles, where users are more likely to encounter information that aligns with their existing views, reinforcing confirmation bias and impeding exposure to diverse perspectives. Algorithms and user engagement metrics employed by social media platforms prioritize content that matches users’ preferences, interests, and past engagement. As a result, users are presented with a curated stream of information that reaffirms their existing beliefs, opinions, and values. This echo chamber effect can lead to a narrowing of perspectives, as users are shielded from encountering contrasting viewpoints or alternative narratives. Filter bubbles reinforce confirmation bias, deepening the divide between differing ideologies and limiting the potential for meaningful dialogue.

ONE OF THE MAIN CULPRITS: TWITTER

Twitter, with its character-limited format and fast-paced nature, has become a platform notorious for hindering constructive discussions on cultural issues. While it offers the potential for connecting with a wide range of voices and opinions, it often fails to foster meaningful dialogue due to its tendency to become an echo chamber for opposing points of view.

One of the main reasons Twitter is ill-suited for discussing cultural issues is its limited character count. With the constraint of expressing thoughts and ideas within a small number of characters, nuance, and complexity are often sacrificed. This restriction leads to the oversimplification of complex topics, making it challenging to delve into the depth and intricacies of cultural debates. As a result, discussions tend to become polarized, reducing the opportunity for thoughtful and nuanced exchanges of ideas.

Additionally, Twitter’s algorithmic design reinforces echo chambers, creating a bubble of like-minded individuals. The platform’s algorithm tends to show users content similar to what they have engaged with in the past, effectively reinforcing existing beliefs and opinions. This creates an environment where users primarily encounter content that aligns with their viewpoints, resulting in a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives. As a consequence, discussions on Twitter tend to devolve into a cycle of reinforcement, with little room for genuine dialogue or the consideration of alternative viewpoints.

Another contributing factor to Twitter’s ineffectiveness as a platform for cultural discussions is the prevalence of online harassment and toxic behavior. The anonymity afforded by the platform allows individuals to engage in uncivil discourse, personal attacks, and the spread of hate speech. This toxic environment discourages many users from participating in meaningful discussions, as they fear being subjected to online abuse or being targeted for their views. Such behavior further stifles the possibility of fostering respectful and constructive exchanges.

Moreover, the fast-paced nature of Twitter makes it difficult to have thorough and thoughtful conversations. Tweets are often shared, retweeted, and replied to within seconds, leading to a fragmented and disjointed conversation. This rapid flow of information makes it challenging to engage in in-depth analysis or provide well-reasoned arguments. Consequently, conversations on Twitter tend to be characterized by quick reactions, snappy comebacks, and emotional responses rather than thoughtful and considerate discussions.

OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS,
OF COURSE, DO NOT GET A FREE PASS

Federal Government participation:

Recent revelations about the federal government participating in the influence of social media platforms have complicated and skewed its use for everyone else who uses it for the free exchange of ideas.

Social media platforms have become an essential part of our lives, and they are increasingly being used to share news, information, and opinions. However, the recent revelations that the government has been using these platforms to influence public opinion has raised serious concerns about the integrity of these platforms and the free exchange of ideas. This has made it more difficult for people to engage in the free exchange of ideas, and it has made it more difficult for the government to be held accountable.

The government’s influence on social media is a serious threat to the free exchange of ideas. It is important that we hold the government accountable for its actions, and that we work to ensure that social media platforms are used for the free exchange of ideas, not for the manipulation of public opinion.

Cult of Mac: Judge blocks government from pushing social media censorship.

A federal judge in Louisiana issued a broad injunction Tuesday limiting federal government contact with social media sites over what the Biden administration may see as disinformation spreading out of control.

The ruling is one of many upcoming that frame a fight over the constitutionality of curbing social media’s influence in light of the First Amendment’s right to freedom of expression.

It’s a big case among several upcoming that could curb government influence over content on sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others.

The injunction comes in response to a lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden. In it, the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, among others, allege a “federal censorship enterprise” puts pressure on social media companies to get rid of certain viewpoints, such as free speech related to election results, COVID-19 pandemic health policies, alleged misdeeds by Hunter Biden and more.

The Path Forward: Respectful and Considerate Dialogue:

To overcome the conversation roadblock created by social media, it is essential to go beyond the limitations of the platform and foster an environment of respect and mutual consideration of opposing ideas. Building such an environment requires a collective effort from users, platforms, and society as a whole. By collectively nurturing an environment of respect and mutual consideration, we can begin to break down the conversation roadblocks created by social media and enable meaningful discussions on important issues. Here are a few steps to encourage constructive cultural discussions:

a) Active Listening: Cultivating the skill of actively listening to others and seeking to understand their perspectives without immediate dismissal or attack is a crucial step toward fostering productive and inclusive conversations. Active listening goes beyond mere hearing; it involves fully engaging with what the other person is saying, paying attention to their words, and emotions. It requires setting aside preconceived notions and suspending judgment, creating a space where individuals feel heard and respected. By genuinely seeking to understand others, we can develop empathy and gain valuable insights into their experiences, beliefs, and values.

b) Critical Thinking: Encouraging critical thinking and fact-checking is paramount in combating the rampant spread of misinformation and ensuring that discussions are grounded in reliable information. In the era of social media, where information can quickly go viral without proper scrutiny, it is crucial to equip individuals with the skills to evaluate the credibility and accuracy of the content they encounter. By promoting critical thinking, individuals are empowered to question and critically assess the sources, context, and potential biases behind the information they encounter. Fact-checking plays a vital role in this process, enabling individuals to verify claims and statements before accepting them as truth. By fact-checking and consulting reputable sources, discussions can be rooted in accurate and verified information, minimizing the propagation of falsehoods and distortions.

c) Diverse Engagement: Seeking out diverse voices and perspectives, both online and offline, is a transformative practice that allows individuals to broaden their understanding and challenge their own assumptions. In a world that is increasingly interconnected, it is essential to actively engage with a variety of viewpoints, experiences, and backgrounds. By exposing ourselves to diverse perspectives, we gain insights into the lived realities of others, fostering empathy and expanding our horizons. Online, this can be achieved by diversifying our social media feeds, following individuals from different cultures, regions, and ideologies. Offline, attending community events, participating in dialogues, or joining diverse groups and organizations can provide opportunities to interact with people who hold different perspectives. Embracing diverse voices not only enriches our own knowledge but also cultivates a more inclusive and tolerant society.

d) Constructive Dialogue: Engaging in respectful conversations that focus on shared values and finding common ground, even in the face of disagreements, is an essential approach for fostering constructive dialogue and building bridges of understanding. Respectful conversations require active listening, empathy, and the willingness to approach discussions with an open mind. By acknowledging shared values, we can establish a foundation of commonality that allows us to find points of agreement, even amidst differing opinions.

e) Offline Engagement: While social media can serve as a starting point for discussions, it is important to recognize its limitations and consider transitioning to face-to-face conversations or participating in community events to foster deeper connections and understanding. While online interactions provide convenience and accessibility, they often lack the richness of in-person communication. Face-to-face conversations allow for nonverbal cues, tone of voice, and immediate feedback, fostering a deeper level of empathy and connection. By engaging in direct conversations, we can build trust, establish personal connections, and create a safe space for open and honest dialogue. Additionally, participating in community events provides opportunities to engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, fostering a sense of shared identity and collective understanding.

Conclusion:

In the age of social media, discussing substantive cultural issues has indeed become increasingly challenging due to several negative factors that impede meaningful conversations.

Nevertheless, there are ways to navigate these challenges and create a culture of constructive and meaningful conversations on social media platforms. Ultimately, embracing the challenge of navigating the roadblocks presented by social media and working towards a more inclusive and understanding society requires a collective effort. It necessitates a commitment to actively listen, think critically, seek diverse perspectives, and engage in respectful dialogue. By doing so, we can counteract the negative impacts of echo chambers, anonymity, and oversimplification, fostering an environment where substantive cultural discussions can take place, leading to a greater understanding and progress in our society.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Culture war – Wikipedia

A culture war is a cultural conflict between social groups and the struggle for dominance of their values, beliefs, and practices. It commonly refers to topics on which there is general societal disagreement and polarization in societal values.

Its contemporary use refers to a social phenomenon in which multiple social groups, holding distinct values and ideologies, attempt to steer public policy in opposition to each other. Thus a culture war now describes “hot button” or “polarizing” social issues in politics. A culture war is defined as “the phenomenon in which multiple groups of people, who hold entrenched values and ideologies, attempt to contentiously steer public policy.” Culture wars often delve around wedge issues, often based on values, morality, and lifestyle which often lead to political cleavage.

The Guardian Everything you wanted to know about the culture wars – but were afraid to ask

I do think we’re in a culture war,” says Matthew d’Ancona, an editor at Tortoise Media, where he has written perceptively about the politicisation of culture. “There have always been cultural conflicts but it’s become much sharper in the last 20 years thanks to declining trust in institutions that were meant to hold together the cohesion of society, some of the growing inequalities, and most of all the proliferation of technology that enables and indeed encourages people to cluster in their cultural groups.”

The historian Dominic Sandbrook agrees that a culture war is under way but cautions against overstating its dimensions. “I think one of the mistakes people make when they talk about culture wars is they think that it’s something that necessarily sweeps up the whole of society, and everybody’s invested in it.” He thinks that more often than not it’s a dispute between two sides of an educated elite.

Whoever started it, the culture wars look set to continue for a while yet. With their preference for gesture over action, they don’t cost very much to participate in – if you discount hurt feelings – and require no great expertise or experience. Doubtless within them are worthy and perhaps essential debates, along with the familiar vices of name-calling, point-scoring and virtue-signaling.

POLITICO: How the ‘Culture War’ Could Break Democracy.

Thirty years ago, sociologist James Davison Hunter popularized the concept of culture war. Today, he sees a culture war that’s gotten worse—and that spells trouble for the future of the American experiment.

In 1991, with America gripped by a struggle between an increasingly liberal secular society that pushed for change and a conservative opposition that rooted its worldview in divine scripture, James Davison Hunter wrote a book and titled it with a phrase for what he saw playing out in America’s fights over abortion, gay rights, religion in public schools and the like: “Culture Wars.”

Hunter, a 30-something sociologist at the University of Virginia, didn’t invent the term, but his book vaulted it into the public conversation, and within a few years it was being used as shorthand for cultural flashpoints with political ramifications. He hoped that by calling attention to the dynamic, he’d help America “come to terms with the unfolding conflict” and, perhaps, defuse some of the tensions he saw bubbling.

In 1991, with America gripped by a struggle between an increasingly liberal secular society that pushed for change and a conservative opposition that rooted its worldview in divine scripture, James Davison Hunter wrote a book and titled it with a phrase for what he saw playing out in America’s fights over abortion, gay rights, religion in public schools and the like: “Culture Wars.”

Hunter, a 30-something sociologist at the University of Virginia, didn’t invent the term, but his book vaulted it into the public conversation, and within a few years it was being used as shorthand for cultural flashpoints with political ramifications. He hoped that by calling attention to the dynamic, he’d help America “come to terms with the unfolding conflict” and, perhaps, defuse some of the tensions he saw bubbling.

Instead, 30 years later, Hunter sees America as having doubled down on the “war” part—with the culture wars expanding from issues of religion and family culture to take over politics almost totally, creating a dangerous sense of winner-take-all conflict over the future of the country.

“Democracy, in my view, is an agreement that we will not kill each other over our differences, but instead we’ll talk through those differences. And part of what’s troubling is that I’m beginning to see signs of the justification for violence,” says Hunter, noting the insurrection on January 6, when a mob of extremist supporters of Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. “Culture wars always precede shooting wars. They don’t necessarily lead to a shooting war, but you never have a shooting war without a culture war prior to it, because culture provides the justifications for violence.”

Part of our problem is that we have politicized everything. And yet politics becomes a proxy for cultural positions that simply won’t brook any kind of dissent or argument.

You hear this all the time. The very idea of treating your opponents with civility is a betrayal. How can you be civil to people who threaten your very existence? It highlights the point that culture is hegemonic: You can compromise with politics and policy, but if politics and policy are a proxy for culture, there’s just no way.

The whole point of civil society, at a sociological level, is to provide mediating institutions to stand between the individual and the state, or the individual and the economy. They’re at their best when they are doing just that: They are mediating, they are educating. I know that argument is part of the “old” liberal consensus view, the “old” rules of public discourse. But the alternatives are violence. And I think we are getting to that point.

Sage Journals: Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies.

Disinformation threatens democratic institutions because it stokes and amplifies the divisions that polarize society (Bennett and Livingston 2018; O’Shaughnessy 2020; Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral 2018), antagonizing groups that hold a different worldview (Braddock 2015). Current events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, show the role of disinformation in radicalizing public opinion to support physical violence. Moreover, even when polarization does not involve actual violence, it still makes policy-making challenging, if not impossible, because public policy is interpreted through the lens of culture wars. The notion of “culture wars” refers to the phenomenon in which multiple groups of people, who hold entrenched values and ideologies, attempt to contentiously steer public policy (Hartman 2019). From introducing sensible gun control policies to convincing the public to wear masks during a global pandemic, culture wars set public policy as a never-ending altercation.

Empirically, the article reports on the flat Earth echo chamber on YouTube, a controversial group arguing that the earth is a plane, not a sphere. By analyzing how they weave their arguments, this study demonstrates that disinformation circulates through identity-based grievances. As grudges intensify, back-and-forth argumentation becomes a form of knowing that solidifies viewpoints. Moreover, the argument resists fact-checking because it stokes the contradictions of identity work through grievances (pathos) and group identification (ethos). The conceptual contribution proposes a two-phase framework for how disinformation circulates on social media. The first phase, “seeding,” is when malicious actors strategically insert deceptions by masquerading their legitimacy (e.g., fake news). The second phase, “echoing,” enlists participants to cocreate the contentious narratives that disseminate disinformation. A definition of disinformation is proposed: Disinformation is an adversarial campaign that weaponizes multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value-laden judgments—to exploit and amplify identity-driven controversies.
DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE PDF (Disinformation and Echo Chambers)

Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR): Climate Science as Culture War.
The public debate around climate change is no longer about science—it’s about values, culture, and ideology.

Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. This assessment is endorsed by a large body of scientific agencies—including every one of the national scientific agencies of the G8 + 5 countries—and by the vast majority of climatologists. The majority of research articles published in refereed scientific journals also support this scientific assessment.

And yet a social consensus on climate change does not exist. Surveys show that the American public’s belief in the science of climate change has mostly declined over the past five years, with large percentages of the population remaining skeptical of the science.

We must acknowledge that the debate over climate change, like almost all environmental issues, is a debate over culture, worldviews, and ideology.

Hoover Institution: The Culture War That Isn’t

The third difficulty with the “culture war” diagnosis derives from the other two. Both sides in this “war” have ended up appealing to common rhetorical themes in their effort to enlist the great bewildered and exasperated American middle. The left talks endlessly about “oppression” — and now so does the right, even the religious right, which has become quite adept at lawsuits invoking the “rights” of religious students or parents or citizens. The left hearkens to the glory of the civil rights movement — and now so does the right, when it appeals to the “right to life” or the “right to choose” in education. Both sides have their lawyers, as well as their lobbyists, their pollsters, and their issue advisors. Both sides try, with varying degrees of success, to show that they are just regular folks who think what most other Americans would think if only they were paying as much attention. A lot of it may be disingenuous, but you can’t wear a public mask for too long without growing into it.

The truth about America seems to be far messier than a “culture war” between “orthodox” and “progressive” forces. We are in the midst of many overlapping and cross-cutting social conflicts. Yes, there are deep divisions regarding public recognition or accommodation of religion and on sexual morals and “family values.” But the same is true for attitudes about gun ownership. And also for views on multiculturalism. There are also deep divisions in attitudes about risk and security in economic affairs, about the aims of developers and the concerns of environmentalists, about animal rights and human needs, about the claims of children and the potentialities of pharmacology — and on and on and on. Quite a lot of these disputes elicit a moralistic rhetoric on one side and an answer of skeptical hooting on the other. But they don’t at all line up neatly as cultural divisions between religious conservatives and secularizing “progressives.” We are a nation of Puritans and a nation of scoffers and we do quite a lot of arguing. And we have long been so. (Mark Twain’s scoffing — and his immense popularity — a century ago should remind us of both: “To be good is noble but to show others how to be good is nobler and no trouble.”) That doesn’t quite add up to a “war.”

University of Chicago Divinity School. The Religion & Culture Forum.
The Struggle Is Real: Understanding the American “Culture War”

Philip Gorksi, in American Covenant, argues that the idea of two ideological monoliths does not do justice to the web of overlapping traditions that make up the American moral imagination.7 Like Gorski, many sociologists have pointed out that the culture-war-as-demographic-reality idea does not accurately represent present-day America.8 When polled or interviewed, Americans show a remarkable diversity of views on social issues, and at the same time show widespread agreement on moral principles. To isolate two opposing sides does injustice to both the diversity and unanimity of opinion in the U.S.

The culture war does not reflect a simple divide between people’s worldviews, so much as it is something that happens when people argue with one another in public. The two narratives—traditional values and social justice—frame the debate, even for the majority of people whose beliefs do not fall neatly in line with either side.

The Christian Science Monitor: Stopping culture wars in their tracks: How one city did it.

In communities across America, the public comment period in school board meetings has morphed into yelling, and sometimes even physical violence, over national hot-button topics.

When residents of Middletown, Ohio, descended on Aug. 23, 2021, school board meeting, the comment period became a complaint period – about mask-wearing and critical race theory.

“If we start relinquishing our rights to make decisions for our children, where does it stop?” one man asked.

Rather than respond, Marlon Styles, the district’s first Black superintendent, took detailed notes on what he was hearing, adding a note to himself: You gotta pick a fight against this if you want the kids to stay the main thing.

Next, he turned to a group of religious leaders with widespread respect in the community.

Their prescription? Remind the community that, no matter the disagreements over theology or pedagogy or even public health, all belong.

Along with the ministers, other ordinarily quiet supporters started speaking up at meetings. The Rev. Michael Bailey said, “Middletown is a strong city. It is strong because of our faith to love and respect one another. It is strong because of our diversity.”

One public comment at a time, the frame on Middletown grew wider. The disagreements were still in the shot, but they hadn’t taken over the focus. The students still had that spot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *