Note from Molly: Many are concerned about the hurtful words and accusations being used at public meetings and in this blog and want to encourage communication that builds our community instead of dividing it. South Berwick resident Scott Landis offers his thoughts here.
An 1833 book on population coined the term “tragedy of the commons” to describe a dynamic of medieval village life in which narrow self-interest was allowed to run amok. Over-grazing of the public commons by one individual’s sheep turned out to be a disaster for the herd and its owner as well as for the environment and the community at large. The farmer unwittingly became the agent of his own demise.
This 19th-century concept, which probably has much earlier roots, has been applied to many ecological disasters since. Indeed, it has become shorthand for any condition in which “free access, and unrestricted demand for a finite resource, ultimately dooms that resource to over-exploitation.” The phenomenon has been used to describe the decline of the world’s great forests and the decimation of the North Atlantic cod fishery.
Some might argue that the metaphor only applies to ecological relationships, but it seems to me we are suffering a parallel modern crisis in public communication that is every bit as tragic and perhaps even more dangerous than any environmental disaster we have faced. Thanks, in large part, to the Internet, talk radio and cable television, we have opened the floodgates to an unprecedented outpouring of information, which is seemingly based on the logic that, if a little communication is good, more of it is better, and unlimited, unmediated communication is even better still. Thus, we now “enjoy” the ability to consume—and disseminate—virtually any information we want, from the comfort and anonymity of our own home. Never mind libel, slander, accuracy, responsible journalism or common decency, all this free speech is considered a healthy manifestation of our democratic birthright.
But there’s a difference between freedom and license. And it seems to me that our appetite for information is defined by nothing so much as our own lack of judgment and self-control. I fear it is destroying the social fabric that binds our society together, for it is our ability to communicate that will enable us to overcome whatever environmental and other catastrophes we will inevitably face.
We needn’t look far to see how this tragedy in our communication “commons” has rent the fabric of our own small town. This very web site, launched with so much hope and promise only a few weeks ago is already so infused by the wanton exchange of personal insults, misinformation and vitriol as to undermine its potential as a vehicle for healthy public discourse. Is this the fault of the “236diner?” Obviously not. The same nasty behavior has been increasingly evident in public meetings I’ve attended for the last few years. But it may have something to do with our incremental adaptation to an intellectual environment that is permeated with unreflective and irresponsible opinion masquerading as public information or political free speech.
South Berwick has undergone a crisis in leadership, but the patient is still on the table. Although our wounds will eventually close, whether we are handicapped by our trauma will depend on how well we treat each other. Honest people will always find reasons to disagree about important issues. This seems to me especially true during a period of intense economic, cultural and political upheaval, such as we are experiencing today. Though we don’t agree about the issues, can we not at least agree to some basic rules to govern our civic debate?
I suggest we might begin with the following:
Ask first, shoot later. Better yet, let’s put the weapons aside, and get our facts straight before we level accusations. By all means, ask for clarification where needed and demand transparency in government, but let’s think, ask questions and listen carefully to the response before we speak (or write), and acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.
Level the playing field. Let’s agree to play by the same rules. This means we all need to follow the same policies when it comes to collecting petition signatures and decorum at public meetings.
Ditch the ad hominem. Let’s not attack the person or the messenger. Challenge the idea, but don’t demean the man or woman expressing it. When we do, we undermine any hope for cooperation or understanding, and we diminish ourselves in the bargain.
Establish respect in a conspiracy-free zone. Conspiracy theories are abundant where crackpot notions are accorded the same value as careful research and reasoned argument. Let’s not assume collusion or corruption and let’s not lump together everybody we don’t agree with as ignorant, in cahoots or a member of some nefarious cabal of special interests.
A republic, if you can keep it. We live in a republic, not a direct democracy. Our councilors are fellow citizens we elected to do our business, and they are ultimately responsible to us through the ballot box. Unlike many of our representatives in Washington, they are not supported by special-interest lobbyists or beholden to political elites. We pay taxes at the same rate, and our elected officials volunteer their time to perform the town’s business to the best of their ability. It is indeed a thankless task. Respect it.
Take responsibility. Anonymity breeds a certain license to say things and behave in ways we might not otherwise countenance. I distrust the use of pseudonyms, initials and abbreviations on this web site or in any other forum, as much as I abhor name-calling and guilt by association. If we feel strongly enough to state our opinion in public, we ought to be willing to attach our full name and credibility to that opinion.
Finally, we need to remember that more information will not make us wise. More words do not make us better communicators. Only we have the power to prevent this modern-day tragedy of the commons from becoming our commonplace reality. We won’t solve all our problems without acrimony, but if we can adhere to a few basic rules of behavior—the kinds of standards we would expect our children to follow—we’ll stand a much better chance of building the community I think we all truly seek.
Scott Landis
I applaud your thoughtful post. However, I respectfully disagree with one of your suggestions. As long as people target other people and are confrontational, I’ll stick with my board name, thank you very much, which I’ve used for years on homeschool boards, music boards, chatboards, etc. Anonymity offers a certain bit of protection from in-your-face people, and I have no desire to have people I see in town confronting me about my opinions, particularly if my opinions differ from the majority. Nor do I want to see someone I know and associate them with a particular opinion. After being on talkboards for many years, I’ve discovered I rather LIKE anonymous or fictitious names. It allows for more open mindedness when finally meeting face to face. No preconceived notions, no finger-pointing and no judgments. I guess I don’t have a mistrust of people or their motives. I am surprised why anyone would be ‘distrustful’. I also don’t think it encourages people to be more abusive/aggressive. If someone is going to be rude, they’ll be rude no matter what. Just my opinion. I’ve read the terms of use for this board, and nothing precludes anyone from using initials, pseudonyms or ‘anonymous.’ Until that time, I will continue to use by board name. Please note, your editorial made me stop, think and consider. I just came to a different conclusion that you. And I’m not sure why I’m so bothered by this, except that I have every right to post the way I do, and I don’t want to be made to feel that I’m ‘irresponsible.’
I have to agree with ladyjane on this. I think that having some anonymity helps in getting more feedback from everyone as you can give your opinion without fear of reprisal by the few. I have found that for the most part everyone has been civil on this board.
Scott, I think your editorial was excellent and addressed many of the concerns that some of us have been feeling. The 236diner is a wonderful asset to our community. I would very much like to see the tone of the 236diner return to its original intent with less acrimony and hostility.
Concerning the names used for posting – a number of people are posting using only a first name. Unfortunately, the use of a first name can be associated with any number of people who share this name. As it could have been chosen randomly, a somewhat inflammatory statement can be attributed to the wrong person. It is natural to try to put a face with a name but in this case it would be a mistake. While I don’t think it should be an excuse to post hurtful things, perhaps using a pseudonym will avoid reprisals against the innocent.
It is my hope that this situation will be resolved and new lines of communication open as a result of this crisis.
As the owner of the blog I’m ambivalent about anonymity and pseudonyms. In general, I’m fine with them. I think they are part of the culture that has grown on the internet and they do make participation in discussion boards feel less exposed. For some they are an alter ego they use on multiple online communities. I am known as “mollymolly” and “Left inMaine” on some other forums I participate in. I also think in the current atmosphere in town some are using them because they do fear reprisal. That said, I don’t like people hiding behind anonymity to say caustic things they wouldn’t say if people knew who they were. In a few cases, and fortunately it has only been a few instances, I have seen people say one thing as themselves and then switch to another persona to say an acrimonious thing. I don’t like that. Also, as administrator of the blog I see IP addresses and other tracking information so when people switch persona I know who they are. My advice to anyone who really wants to be anonymous is don’t use the internet and don’t send email.
I appreciate and agree with Scott’s call to courteous conversation. It doesn’t matter to me whether people use their names or remain anonymous, I’d still like them to be courteous.
I also love the flow of communication online, even if it does reveal one’s lack of self-discipline. When people are sitting at a “real” diner, I’m sure the full range of conversations are taking place, from courteous to rude, from constructive to destructive, from mundane to elevated. The internet allows us to “listen in” to many more conversations than we could if we were physically present with each other. That ability to listen in helps us to widen our awareness of how others are thinking and feeling, and to express our thoughts perhaps more frankly and clearly than we would in person. (And with writing them down, we can edit when the words just don’t come out right!)
The Eliotonline email list has gone through bouts of negativity and attacks, and we’ve had “guidelines” suggested much like Scott listed above. Usually people agree, and then we get back to more productive conversations online for a while, along with humor and simple announcements of events. I think the attacks are happening less and less often, over the 10 years or so of being on Eliotonline. But then there will be an outburst again at times. We’re human, apologies are always an option, and we learn as we go.
I wonder if Kittery and York have a blog or email list to have these sorts of conversations. Anyone know?
Diane Brandon, Eliot
I agree with Scott – I think there is a difference between blogging in a virtual community and blogging in your real community. Somehow masks seem suspect among friends and neighbors. It saddens me beyond belief to think we can’t express differing opinions without fear of personal reprisals. I think we have to own what we say. We might be wrong sometimes and need more information – seems the nature of the blog to be able to get that information here (or at least differing opinions about the topic), we might lash out in anger and have to apologize, that can be hard but it’s just a part of communicating. Kindness will go a long way toward getting us to all be comfortable being ourselves with each other.
Jane Cowen-Fletcher
I have had several people speak to me recently because they see me speak at the town meetings. Some of them read the posts here. Some people I know, or have met, some I do not know, and do not necessarily introduce themselves.
As long as no-one goes overboard or gets upset because I disagree with them, or they disagree with me, I’m sort of ok with that.
My wife and I enjoy our privacy, and quite life, but If I’m going to be seen in public making statements about how I feel, I guess you have to give some of it up.
Moving on from the foolishness above.