Study Resistance To Widened Political Polarization
Tyler Cowen today:
Consider how an economy might work if buying decisions were made on a consistently ideological basis. Imagine a “right-wing” supermarket chain and a “left-wing” alternative. … The history of Northern Ireland shows a great many retailers, from funeral parlors to bars, that served either a largely Protestant or a largely Catholic clientele. Maybe people felt better about these exclusive commercial affiliations, but it didn’t do the economy any favors to stifle competition, and it may have helped drive political polarization too.
Two days ago an economics professor mentioned to me that he was taking a class on how to mix drinks in part because that is a relatively unpoliticized sphere of life. While there are different drink philosophies, so far none have obtained strong political connotations. It seemed to him, and to me, that in many areas of life substantial fractions of people actively resist allowing different standard views there to collect political connotations.
Of course in a rising tide of polarization, more and more spheres of life may drown in political floods. Once major divisions within an area are seen as political, outside political allies may be drawn into a bitter fight, which one political side may win, enabling it to take over that area of life. But it is worth noticing that some social processes actively resist such widened polarization. (Or more precisely “pillarisation“.)
We would do well to study such processes. To identify which areas of life are now fighting how hard to resist being caught up in political polarization. Then to theorize on what causes this extra willingness to resist. Such theories may help resisting areas to better coordinate to resist polarization. Yes, many political groups are now organizing to infect more areas with political polarization. But there seems room for more coordination against such widened polarization. If only we understood at least the basics of what is going on here.
Humor, music, and the arts in general. A shared history of overcoming obstacles with diverse groups (the world wars, ending slavery, scientific/medical advances). There is plenty of subject matter but not enough public voices willing to say these things. Public personalities seem geared to appeal to the widest possible audience but a "hold together" message is going to cause some defensiveness and might even alienate your existing base. I think we need a wider social norm change where negative behavior in the technology age is punished. Maybe not so much with banning but simply reliable feedback from other users that this is not to be tolerated.
Also, vote. When politicians are publicly punished for incompetence by losing office people notice and public norms shift.
I think that's definitely true for shallow popular music of the time. But I'm not so sure about the music that persists through historical eras. For instance, there were black stars at the Metropolitan Opera, completely welcomed, before it was a political diversity thing, just because the voices were so incredible. (Leontyne Price, Jesseye Norman, Kathleen Battle, etc.)
(Noted, there is perhaps no better example of Dr. Hanson's signaling thesis than the dedication to be a world class opera singer.)
Currently I see Jazz too as a genre that doesn't particularly care about background or points of view for anyone who wants to invest heavily in the style and nuances. My hunch is that Hip Hop will take on more of this character over time as well.