Facebook polis

If you have a Facebook account which you visited even once in early August, you could not have missed it; Facebook walls normally filled with food photos, vacation Instagrams and Buzzfeed links, now overrun by posts condemning either Israel or Hamas, lamenting the fate of those in Gaza or defending the actions of Israel. The media noted the phenomenon, as did more than one of my Facebook connections, some who admitted to "defriending" friends over the online conflict.

While many saw the explosion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Facebook walls as an unfortunate violation of social media norms, this political scientist - and perhaps others like me who advocate for more citizen engagement - was heartened. Yes, I'm sure many of the posts "crossed lines" and it is never a good thing to lose a friend (over something like politics), but when you live in a society where people disagree strongly over important issues, nothing is better for democracy than a healthy debate.

That last statement is, of course, debatable. Those who study citizen deliberation - as will be unsurprising to anyone who's ever had a political discussion themselves - note that there are many potential downsides to "cross-cutting" dialogue. Instead of leading to better understanding, people engaged in political debate may just become more entrenched in their views. That's because we all share a pair of biases - confirmation and disconfirmation - which incline us to zero in on information that supports our views and swiftly discount information that challenges thems. More worrisome is the risk that comes when "lines are crossed" - that is, when debate becomes uglified by off-color comments, ad hominem attacks or other forms of nastiness. That's when friends get lost and, worse, people become convinced that those who disagree with them not only see the world differently but are some shade of "bad people."

But even though debate comes with considerable risks, we starry-eyed (small d) democrats have got to believe that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. For one, when we're silent about our views we have no chance of exposing others to different perspectives (and being exposed ourselves). (This is especially true today as we can become increasingly selective in our media choices.) While ignorance is arguably bliss on most topics, it can be dangerous when important issues are on the line. And even if we don't gain greater understanding of an issue through debate with our friends, there is a good chance that we'll appreciate other perspectives just by virtue of our friends holding them. This is the great hope of dialogue - that, at least when individuals share their views civilly (ie, avoiding nastiness), it's hard for rifts not to be somewhat narrowed (if rarely totally mended).

Whether the current Gaza-Israel Facebook battle results in a widening or narrowing of the divide between both sides - that is, whether the forces of repulsion or attraction win out in this case - is a matter of guess work. But maybe in some future of data-analysis wizardry we can test to see.