Debate this- The Malaysian Insider
August 13, 2010 — We are united by our growing appetite for debate. Somehow, looking back it seems that a whole generation in between the heated kopitiam debates of yore and the incessant Internet chatter of today was somehow silent.
It is almost as if this ability to express ourselves is somehow virginal and miraculous, but now that it is there, there is nobody without an opinion. The mainstream media may not have reached the point of editorials and op-eds facing each other on a page, but the online news community is beginning to put opposing points of view on the same page and letting readers have a vigorous debate on the merits of any issue. From the NEM to Alex Ferguson’s worth as a coach, there is space for views across the spectrum.
How has this faculty developed so fast and so overwhelmingly? How did this generation, educated the same way as the one before, in a culture with one of the highest Hofstede’s PDI (Power Distance Index) of any society, get the ability to argue with their elders and “betters”?
While the information explosion, increased social mobility and loosening of official controls on the freedom of expression online have all played their part, I would argue that this willingness to debate is just a social safety valve which has been part of our social fabric all along. We have always found ways of releasing the stresses of living in a multi-racial country in non-violent ways.
Illustration by Chris Kwok.
The Wayang Kulit is testament to our love of shadow play, of knowing that all is not what it seems. Reading between the lines has always been somewhat of an art form for us. When we are termed a credulous lot of conspiracy theorists, it is actually a reflection of our capacity to allow for the possibility of greys between the black and white. We have never taken things at face value.
What is new is the ability to share our individual opinions in a collective space independent of social constructs and therefore compare and make up our minds. In an earlier era, I would have my suspicions, but there was no way to compare these with others to arrive at an answer that was definitive for me. Everything was debated in closed groups where the same point of view was echoed by all the members of the group.
The other new thing is the anonymity of new media. The fear factor and the social unease radicalism engenders in our culture is eliminated by the facelessness of the Internet, meaning there is no cost to listening, comparing or engaging in debate. This is why the comments section underneath columns on Malaysian news portals has more than its fair share of vituperative venom. These are new ways of blowing off steam, and they must be understood and tolerated as such.
The quality of our debating may still leave a lot to be desired, given the newness of the opportunity, but in an environment where there are so many opinions flying around, we have no choice but to delve a little deeper to make up our minds on any topic. As all of us get better informed, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be more critical before accepting anything as the truth. The search is on for that elusive middle ground that allows us to maintain our most cherished beliefs while arguing the subtler, greyer shades of the issues of the day.
Due to this, I would suggest that in the near future, our ability to separate propaganda and rhetoric from analysis and facts will be better than ever before. If before getting swayed to a position we compare the content of the rhetoric rather than the volume, we will be well on our way to becoming a mature democracy.
It is almost as if this ability to express ourselves is somehow virginal and miraculous, but now that it is there, there is nobody without an opinion. The mainstream media may not have reached the point of editorials and op-eds facing each other on a page, but the online news community is beginning to put opposing points of view on the same page and letting readers have a vigorous debate on the merits of any issue. From the NEM to Alex Ferguson’s worth as a coach, there is space for views across the spectrum.
How has this faculty developed so fast and so overwhelmingly? How did this generation, educated the same way as the one before, in a culture with one of the highest Hofstede’s PDI (Power Distance Index) of any society, get the ability to argue with their elders and “betters”?
While the information explosion, increased social mobility and loosening of official controls on the freedom of expression online have all played their part, I would argue that this willingness to debate is just a social safety valve which has been part of our social fabric all along. We have always found ways of releasing the stresses of living in a multi-racial country in non-violent ways.
Illustration by Chris Kwok.
The Wayang Kulit is testament to our love of shadow play, of knowing that all is not what it seems. Reading between the lines has always been somewhat of an art form for us. When we are termed a credulous lot of conspiracy theorists, it is actually a reflection of our capacity to allow for the possibility of greys between the black and white. We have never taken things at face value.
What is new is the ability to share our individual opinions in a collective space independent of social constructs and therefore compare and make up our minds. In an earlier era, I would have my suspicions, but there was no way to compare these with others to arrive at an answer that was definitive for me. Everything was debated in closed groups where the same point of view was echoed by all the members of the group.
The other new thing is the anonymity of new media. The fear factor and the social unease radicalism engenders in our culture is eliminated by the facelessness of the Internet, meaning there is no cost to listening, comparing or engaging in debate. This is why the comments section underneath columns on Malaysian news portals has more than its fair share of vituperative venom. These are new ways of blowing off steam, and they must be understood and tolerated as such.
The quality of our debating may still leave a lot to be desired, given the newness of the opportunity, but in an environment where there are so many opinions flying around, we have no choice but to delve a little deeper to make up our minds on any topic. As all of us get better informed, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff, to be more critical before accepting anything as the truth. The search is on for that elusive middle ground that allows us to maintain our most cherished beliefs while arguing the subtler, greyer shades of the issues of the day.
Due to this, I would suggest that in the near future, our ability to separate propaganda and rhetoric from analysis and facts will be better than ever before. If before getting swayed to a position we compare the content of the rhetoric rather than the volume, we will be well on our way to becoming a mature democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment