Notes from the asylum

Social media has turned public discourse into a madhouse of mutual incomprehension.

The scene is set during the Great War. Two witches, one English and one German, are battling it out in the skies over London. Magical bolts erupt from their fingertips as they whirl about each other on their broomsticks. They come to settle on a nearby cloud where they briefly discuss the origins of their conflict. ‘We are Crusaders,’ says the German witch. ‘Crusaders at War with Evil’. ‘Why,’ replies the English witch, ‘how funny – so are we’.

This episode is from Stella Benson’s 1919 novel Living Alone, and could serve as a parable about the futility of virtually all online disputes. The clashes, the sparks, the screaming rage: it’s all become so recognisable. But one aspect we often forget is that antagonists in every faction believe that they are on the side of the angels. To quote the English witch in Benson’s fantasy: ‘How can two people be righteously scourging each other at the same time?... There must be some misunderstanding somewhere’.

I have long argued that the culture war is predominately about language and who gets to define the meaning of words. But scrolling through social media the other day, I found that the most common feature of the disputes that were raging away was that everyone seemed to be persuaded of their own virtue. There are so many important discussions to be had, but most participants appear to be thrashing around with straw men.

Perhaps this is why I am finding social media to be an increasingly deranging experience. Logging on to these sites is like entering an asylum, with various inmates chattering to each other endlessly but not really hearing a word. How can one possibly be an interpreter when everyone is speaking their own distinct language? And, worse still, when they are proceeding under the illusion that they are comprehending each other perfectly?

Let’s take one example out of trillions and settle on a video that I happened to see on X the other day. It was ostensibly a whimsical performance – one man singing and playing a guitar – but the lyrics were pointedly political ( a variation on a Woody Guthrie song from 1942).

‘I’m going to tell you fascists, you may be surprised,
The people of this world, we’re getting organized.
You’re bound to lose, you fascists are bound to lose.

Race hatred cannot stop us, this one thing I know,
Your transphobia and your race hate’s got to go.
You’re bound to lose, you fascists are bound to lose.’

Hardly a rival for Stephen Sondheim, but the lyrical inelegance isn’t the point. What exactly was this gentleman so agitated about? Who are these ‘fascists’ that he is seeking to goad with his minstrelsy? Haven’t the fascists that Guthrie was singing about already been roundly defeated? If these fascists have suddenly become mainstream, why haven’t I ever met one? No doubt this chap believes that he is courageously striking blows against a rising army of neo-Nazis through the medium of acoustic folk. But in truth his song is directed at people who do not exist outside of his skull.

There appear to be two possibilities here. Either he is caught in a delusion that fascism remains a powerful force in society – one shared by a surprising number of campaigners – or he is operating on the basis of a new definition of ‘fascism’ that is wholly unrelated to its historical, cultural and philosophical meaning.

So what is the solution? Activists of this kind are generally allergic to debate, but supposing this man consented to sit with me over a coffee and outline precisely what he means by ‘fascist’. I suspect, although I cannot be sure, that it would soon become clear that he has expanded the term ‘fascist’ to incorporate anyone who has concerns about illegal immigration or who knows that there are only two sexes. In other words, in order to position himself as a brave warrior against fascism, he has broadened the term’s scope to incorporate views held by the majority of the population.

It’s a neat solution to the supply and demand problem. If a vegan activist wishes to promote the view that his dietary preferences are the norm, he might expand the definition of ‘vegetable’ to incorporate all types of animal flesh. Suddenly, everyone is a vegan, and his cause is therefore provably the norm. There is only one problem with this approach. While the delusion may offer him reassurance and self-satisfaction, a pig does not cease to be a pig simply because you call it a turnip.

Our beardy balladeer appears to be imagining foes into existence to swaddle himself in the comfort blanket known as ‘purpose’. And yet we are not necessarily on ‘different sides’. I too fear fascism, and I too would like to see this crazed fringe belief gone for good. I suppose our main point of distinction is that if I genuinely believed that the fascists were close to power, I doubt that writing gloating ditties about their inevitable demise would be an effective line of defence. From what I know of fascists, they tend not to wither away upon hearing critiques expressed in musical form.

No doubt this chap would see me as part of the problem, even though our antipathy towards fascism is shared. Whereas I write books to warn against the inevitable creep of authoritarianism in human nature, he imagines that we already exist in a tyrannical dystopia. If I were still engaging with fantasists online – a habit that I have thankfully outgrown (more or less) – I would doubtless be rowing endlessly with the likes of this hipster songsmith and getting precisely nowhere. We are occupying distinct realities. Mine has the benefit of being tethered to the real world… but I suppose he would say the same thing.

I am writing this in a bad temper, and a renewed determination to avoid social media as much as possible. What might happen if we all remain in this asylum? What will it do to our collective sanity if we continue to argue with spectres? Or is it not the case that we have already been driven insane by our endless arguments with ourselves? Isn’t that exactly what madmen do?

For instance, what is the utility of a discussion like the following, which most of us will have seen played out interminably online:

A: ‘Women are entitled to single-sex spaces.’

B: ‘And those spaces must include trans women.’

A: ‘No, because trans women are men.’

B: ‘No, trans women are women.’

There is no point of compromise here, because there are no shared definitions. For A, a woman is a biological category. For B, a woman is an identity category. They are arguing about totally different things.

The solution, I suppose, is that we should adopt a more circumspect approach to how we argue, and be more selective about our choice of interlocutor. Most people understand that fascism is by no stretch of the imagination a mainstream force in society, and those who demur have already demonstrated that they cannot be reached with reason. Likewise, those who do not accept that there are only two sexes are unlikely to be shaken out of their delusion by means of an online spat.

In other words, let’s reserve our energies for those still capable of adult conversation. And when we do find ourselves in a good faith debate, let’s make a point of insisting that we each summarise our opponent’s position to their satisfaction before we begin. Let’s assume that our opponent is coming from a place of good intentions, and that the world is not so easily divided into ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Once these conditions are met, an argument is possible. Until then, we’re just thrashing around on broomsticks.

---