The design and symbols of our public institutions and customs always reveal much about the values we hold. The House of Commons is filled with such symbolism, from the mace in the centre of the chamber, that symbolises the monarch’s authority, to the shields lining the walls, which representing MPs killed in the course of their service.
But perhaps more surprisingly, given the popular perception of politics, the very design of the Commons chamber is supposed to symbolise discussion and dialogue, rather than combat; the two sets of green benches are supposedly set two swords’ width’s apart (and the parliamentary convention still stands to this day that MPs should hang up their swords in the cloakrooms!).
We can debate whether MPs really abide by this commitment, but you can trace the distance out in steps should you visit the chamber.
The House of Commons is of course still the primary place for political debate in this nation. But the advent of social media has opened up political debate to a far wider audience. Debates can be followed at the mere opening of an app, entered with a few taps of the fingers, and responded to with an aptly chosen gif. Welcome to the virtual public square.
Yet whilst the public square is governed by rules and (perhaps more importantly) conventions, the online public square represents a contemporary wild west. It is a land without clearly defined rules, or ways of being, where the strongman is king.
Social Media amplifies unhelpful voices
On the one hand, social media has democratised information and diversified debate. Anyone, anywhere, can have access to the most pressing issues and conversations of the day. A teenager can respond to the argument of a Cabinet Minister; a teacher can engage with leading education policy announcements; a passer-by can capture and share footage of an event regardless of their journalistic credentials.
Yet this says little about the quality of that information and debate. Whilst increased access is largely held as a good thing, this vast expansion in the scope of public debate has thrown up issues such as fake news, deep fakes, clickbait, and claims and counterclaims that lack sources or journalistic and/or academic rigour.
One fascinating thing which was exposed during the Brexit debates was the tension between expert voices and the populist cry of “we’ve had enough of experts”. For although there is something healthy about anyone being able to challenge the perceived wisdom of the day, there is also something concerning about a widespread distrust of academics, professionals, and business leaders.
It is surely right that the voice of the Chief Medical Officer carries more weight than the voice of landscape gardener Dave from Scunthorpe when it comes to Health Policy. That is not to say that what he says should go unscrutinised or even unchallenged, but there is wisdom in giving some voices more weight than others.
Social Media requires too little effort
To put it simply, not all contributions are equal. Yes, it is fantastic that I can learn about an issue on social media, engage with arguments, and follow a campaign. But changing a status, sharing a mass-produced letter or retweeting someone’s post requires very little consideration and effort. There is a danger that we end up doing little more than churning out ill-thought through opinions and crude comebacks into the vast bucket that is the internet, and do not offer a meaningful and positive contribution to the matter at hand.
Indeed, how much of our online engagement amounts to empty grumbling, rather than meaningful action? For example, it is all well and good to tweet a photo of some litter with the caption ‘outrageous’ @ your council and an angry emoji, but to then walk on by. Far harder it is to roll up your sleeves, grab a bin bag and start cleaning up the local park. Get involved in your parish council, your school board, your foodbank or your village fete. Donate money to groups actively doing something about the issues you care about. Join a political party, stand as a councillor, or offer to meet with your MP for a genuine discussion. These are all things which accomplish far more than some angry words into the Twittersphere.
Social Media simplifies complex issues
It is also interesting to consider the brevity inherent in the virtual public square.
Debates come and go in a matter of minutes. You can get caught up in a debate concerning fishing in the English Channel one minute and the next be discussing war between Israel and Gaza. Complex debates are compressed into 280 characters on Twitter or a 20 second reel on Tik Tok.
Many public debates are complicated and have grey areas that require much consideration (and carefully-chosen words). The structure of our virtual platforms discourages such practices, instead encouraging rapid and frequent engagement, that values clicks and attention more highly than substantive and wise discussion.
Social Media is only a tool
But rather than social media itself being the root of all our ills, our issues ultimately stem from the human heart.
Social media might encourage outrageous takes, but I still have a choice whether to write that abusive comment.
Social media might distract me from carefully reading that link before responding, but I still have the option to not respond until I have read and considered the post properly.
Social media might offer me helpful counter points from the mainstream narrative, but I still have to be wise in whose voice I listen to.
Social media might give me the impression of feeling important, but I need to be savvy about the difference between online activity and meaningful change.
Social media might provide me with a platform to scrutinise and assess ideas, but I need to have the humility to recognise I might not be best placed to engage.
Jesus said, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” (Mark 7:15)
As believers then, we need to be wise in our engagement with social media – its faults do not irredeemably condemn it, for evil is found within, not without.
However, we do need to consider how social media shapes and disciples us. It strikes me that perhaps for many of us, there are few other things that consume so much of our attention and provide us with so much of our information.
With this in mind then, might I suggest a few questions to help you discern whether your relationship and engagement with social media is healthy this election time?
- How does my engagement with social media help me love God with all my heart, mind, and strength?
- How does my engagement with social media help me love my neighbour as myself?
- How does my engagement with social media help me exhibit the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, thankfulness, and self-control) both online and in person?
- How does my engagement with social media help me to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God?
It might be that for some of us, this requires us to take a step back, or to change who we follow, or what we post. It might be that we have no issues in this area, either in our behaviour or in our motivation, but it is vital that we test our hearts, for they are deceptive and deceitful beyond all things; maybe it’s worth asking a friend or family member to give you honest feedback on these matters.
Social media can be a good addition to our democracy and public debate. It can help us to learn what’s going on, engage with a wide range of voices, and encounter and explore new ideas.
But used badly, it can be of great damage to ourselves and to our own spiritual formation, and it can equally be of great damage to our democracy and to our public institutions. As believers invested in the common good, let us be people who are wise and humble about our engagement online, and encourage others to be the same.
