The ‘wall-less’ trap of social media

Just be careful, though. A leading sociologist has questioned whether the social media is actually imprisoning rather than liberating its users. Zygmunt Bauman may not be the household name here, but the 90-year-old Polish academic has experienced enough historical upheaval to notice that the rise of the social media is not leading to the open-mindedness its advocates promise. He goes as far as to use the word “trap”, scuttling the conventional belief that online networks empower the individual and increase freedom.

Having fled Nazi persecution in Poland during World War II, Bauman went on to earn numerous honours in the field of sociology for his acute observations of daily life. He sees what we, too, see – but few of us think about it as much as he does. He considers the rise of social media one of the biggest changes in human history. The days when people “belonged to society” have been swept away, Bauman says, replaced by a “society that belongs to people”.

At first glance, the wordplay carries little meaning. What’s the big difference between a society that belongs to people and people belonging to society, anyway? Bauman explains that in belonging to society, people are open to – or have to be open to – different ideas, which they must try to understand or even adapt to. In contrast, when people “control” or “own” their societies, narrow-mindedness creeps in and intolerance eventually reigns.

He notes that most people use social media not to embrace new thinking but to “cut themselves a comfort zone where the only sounds they hear are the echoes of their own voices and the only things they see are the reflections of their own faces”. While undoubtedly of great potential utility, the social media can also be a trap, according to Bauman. The “trap” is living our lives thinking we are absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong. The “trap” is creating unseen walls that block opposing thoughts. Within that trap, what we believe is right is amplified without limit.

Bauman’s view flies in the face of the general assumption that the social media are an effective tool of empowerment. That belief has made the social media a political and ideological battleground. Activists, propagandists, publicists and advocates converge online to push ideas that would take a lot longer to promote elsewhere. While the phenomenon has its merits, it also has serious drawbacks.

To feel “empowered” is one thing, but to “control” our environment of ideas is another. The social media allow us to add more friends as we wish and delete them at will. Real life is more or less the same, but in our online lives we are a lot more powerful. First comes the temptation to get rid of the “nuisances”, but over time that attitude morphs into the urge for absolute control over who we relate to. This helps explain why, in Thailand, the social media have served to fuel the political strife rather than resolve it. Few “yellow shirt” users have a long list of red-shirt “friends”, and vice versa.

It’s human nature to live among like-minded people. Democracy was invented to tame the negative effects of that behaviour. While the social media have been hailed as a great force for democracy, Bauman cautions that such a noble purpose will go unrealised unless user habits change significantly. 

Of course, thanks to the social media’s information whirlwind, people know more and are learning more. So the question should be this: How much more do we want to learn?

“Every single person out there knows something you don’t.” That quote comes from the social media and highlights the online networks’ usefulness. Our small windows open onto an endless world of information, but that precious gift is wasted if we set a wall-less trap for ourselves. The unbelievable amount of knowledge at our fingertips is a blessing our ancestors could have hardly dreamed of. So, unless you are being bullied or harassed, think twice before you click that “unfriend” button.