Despite the fact that democracy, in the present scenario, seems to be a slightly better system of government as compared to other forms, Plato, in his The Republic, wrote a damning critique of it. For him, politics, like any other field, requires expertise and a political leader must be equipped with certain skills to run a government. Democracy, in his view, does not foster such faculties. Plato has used the analogy of a navigator to drive his point home. For a ship to be driven to safety, we do not need a captain who is popular rather a captain who knows what he is doing. He says:
…the true navigator must study the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds, and all the other subjects appropriate to his profession if he is to be fit to control the ship…
Instead of breeding such experts, democracy brings forth tricksters and propagandists who are adept at manipulating and exploiting public opinion. Consequently, a democratic political system gives rise to mass ignorance, hysteria and distortion of the truth. No doubt, one can bring forth many arguments to defend democracy against this onslaught by one of the greatest philosophers ever lived but here, in this article, I would not delve into that. My analysis is delimited to the state of democracy in the age of social media and how it reminds us that Plato was somewhat right about popular opinion and its negative impact on the public sphere.
In 1895, Gustave Le Bon published a book titled The Crowd: A Study of Popular Mind. In this book, he termed Modernity as the ‘age of crowds.’ He observed that the existing power structure was giving way and a new form of power was taking shape and this new power was the power of the crowd. He was writing in the age when democracy was on the rise and labour unions, political parties and other entities were taking the power away from kings and traditional authorities. “The divine right of the masses,” he says “is about to replace the divine rights of kings.” The crowd took centre stage in the socio-political sphere of the 20th C but 21st C is going through another transformation.
Byung-Chul Han is of the view that the crowd is now replaced by a ‘digital swarm’ i.e., the online presence of a mass of people brought together by the social media sites like Facebook, Twitter etc. Han opines that the crowd has a specific spirit or soul. The soul gathers and unites. The digital swarm does not have a soul. It comprises individuals who do not have any common objective or purpose. In the crowd, the individual has no identity of his while in the ‘digital swarm’, the individual does not lose his private identity. “The digital inhabitants of the Net do not assemble”, says Han, “They lack the interiority of assembly that would bring forth a we.” When the crowd gathers, it becomes a force, a political power. On the other hand, the swarm does not have such a political impact. They do not question the existing power structures. They just target individuals and cause scandals.
No wonder the last ten years have given rise to populist political leaders all across the globe who use social media to scandalize their opponents. This so vividly recalls Plato’s stance on democracy and public opinion. In the age of social media, it has become so easy to influence and manipulate public opinion and the populist leaders are doing just the same to get themselves elected. The case of Cambridge Analytica is one such example.
Plato’s ‘philosopher king’ might be too idealistic a concept but, at least, in the past, we did have an illusion of public sphere run by experts or, at least, a semblance of them. This was true in the case of information and knowledge as well. Information, in human history, had always been hierarchal. It used to flow from rulers to being ruled, from experts to laymen. Most importantly, it was controlled and censored by the people in power. Even the war between power and its dissenters was a war fought for the control of public opinion.
In the age of radio and tv, people could just passively receive information. Social media has changed all that. According to Byung Chul Han, people are not just the receivers of information but are also producers of it. A person with a social media account can express his/her opinion without the approval or censor of a mediatory authority. Han says: “General demediatization is putting an end to an era of representation. Instead, everyone wants to be present personally and directly – to present his or her opinion without a middleman.” Anybody, just like the author of this article, can publish their opinion online without ever worrying about publishing obstacles and economics.
It can be argued that today, because of access to online information, human beings have more knowledge that, in turn, translates into having better opinions and insight into the political sphere. A very important distinction has to be made here. If one has access to more information, it does not mean one has access to truth and facts as well. Truth and knowledge are exclusive and selective. One can have a lot of information but one should have the ability to sift out this information, to analyse and grade it. Only this analysed and graded information gets translated into knowledge and authentic opinion. Just access to information is not enough it can lead to distortion and manipulation. If we analyse the opinions of common people on social media, we realize how ill-informed and incorrect they are about some core socio-political issues. For a citizen to distil and analyse this information and see through the propaganda and manipulation, such expertise is needed. This again reminds us of Plato that non-experts can never have a well-informed and critical opinion about matters of socio-political significance. Han comments:
Knowledge does not simply lie at the ready. One cannot just find it out there, as one can information. As a rule, lengthy experience precedes it. Its temporality is wholly different from the temporality of information, which is extremely short and short-term. Moreover, information is explicit, whereas knowledge often assumes an implicit form.
Looking at information from this perspective, it is evident that social media users might have access to information but it does not mean they have the required critical ability to turn this information into knowledge. Excessive exposure to information deteriorates one’s analytic abilities as is upheld by British psychologist David Lewis. He opines that an overflow of information deadens one’s, thinking faculties.
It is no secret that digital tracks of all users are recorded and stored. Every click that we make online is tracked and monitored. The kind of music we listen to, the articles we buy online, the kind of shows we watch and most importantly what political opinions we uphold, everything has a digital trace. This implies that data companies and social media giants know us intimately and, in turn, can predict and manipulate our political choices. The question of agency and freedom has taken on a completely new meaning in this age. When we express ourselves online through social media, we are exposing ourselves. This exposure provides essential information to the data companies. They use this information to manipulate and manoeuvre our political opinions. Freedom of choice is an illusory freedom. It leads to an implicit kind of control which is more dangerous as the individual is not even aware that he/she is being controlled. “In today’s society of information—where the state and the market are merging—the activities of Acxiom, Google, and Facebook increasingly resemble those of official security agencies,” says Han. The 4th stage of capitalism has taken us into an age of ‘internet of things. Now, even the house appliances, cars, and other electronic equipment that we use are interlinked through the internet and transmit our data to other devices and servers. We are perpetually under surveillance. George Orwell’s Big Brother has become a reality.
In the light of these arguments, we can assert that Plato’s censure of democracy does hold some water. An ill-informed public can easily be manipulated by hollow rhetoric and jingoism. They lack the ability to process the information and choose well. The populist leaders use the power of social media to create a culture of negativity. They define their politics through a process of negation. They cover up their inefficiency through rhetoric and blame game. Only a critical and well-informed public can see through this hollow rhetoric. For this, we need to overhaul our education system and produce citizens with analytical skills. This is the only way to make democracy workable.
- Democracy in the Age of Social Media - 14/03/2022
