In the Critics this week

John Gray on Richard Holloway, Richard Evans on A N Wilson and Claude Lanzmann interviewed.

In the Critics in this week's New Statesman, the NS's lead book reviewer John Gray is entranced by Richard Holloway's memoir Leaving Alexandria.This is "a profound, personal investigation of the virtues and flaws of religion," Gray writes, "and the most stirring autobiography I have read in a great many years." Holloway's thinking on religion, Gray argues, is "searching and subtle", and his agnosticism "poses a more fundamental challenge to Christianity than any that has been posed by the so-called new atheists".

In the Books Interview, Sophie Elmhirst talks to John Lanchester about his new novel Capital. This is both a book about London, Lanchester says, and a book about the ubiquitous language of money. Of the latter, he says: "It's like ... a code written on the surface of things; it's in flow all around us, all the time ... I was keen to ... see some of the specific ways in which specific sums of money exert different forces on different characters at different times."

Also in Books, the leading historian of the Third Reich Richard J Evans reviews A N Wilson's Hitler: a Short Biography. Noting that Wilson doesn't appear to read German, Evans writes: "[He does not] seem to have thought very hard or taken much care over what little reading he has done". All we find, Evans concludes, is "evidence of the repellent arrogance of a man who thinks that because he is a celebrated novelist, he can write a book about Hitler that people should read, even though he's put very little work into writing it and even less thought."

Other book reviews: Olivia Laing on Hope: a Tragedy by Shalom Auslander; Ed Smith on American Gridlock by H Woody Brock; David Shariatmadari on Patriot of Persia by Christopher de Bellaigue.

Elsewhere in the Critics: Jonathan Derbyshire profiles Claude Lanzmann, resistance fighter, writer and director of Shoah; Ryan Gilbey on Trishna, Michael Winterbottom's updating of Tess of the d'Urbevilles; Rachel Cooke is dismayed by the "tick-box drama" of White Heat on BBC2; Helen Lewis pays tribute to Peter Cook; Ludovic Hunter-Tilney meets Alice Coleman, scourge of the tower block; and Antonia Quirke listens to Desert Island Discs. PLUS: "Posthumous", a poem by Olivia Byard; Will Self's Madness of Crowds; and The Fan by Hunter Davies.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Social media tome #Republic questions the wisdom of crowds

Cass R Sunstein explores how insulation pushes groups towards more extreme opinions.

Cass Sunstein, one of the leading public intellectuals in the United States and a former Obama administration official, has worried and written for more than 15 years about the effects of the internet and digital communications on democracy. This book, his third on the subject, tackles social media.

The heart of his argument lies in the cumulative, collective effect of what individuals do online. Networking, shopping, dating and activism are all transformed by the engine of opportunity that is the internet. But those new links and choices produce a malign side effect: “filter bubbles”, inside which like-minded people shut themselves off from opinions that might challenge their assumptions. Insulation pushes groups towards more extreme opinions.

Sunstein’s organising principle is the ­difference between consumer and political sovereignty. The former promotes individual choice despite its possible consequences; the latter takes into account the needs of society as a whole. His inspiration is Jane Jacobs, the historian of US cities who celebrated, in poetic language, the benign and enriching effect on democracy of random encounters between citizens on pavements and in parks. How do we now reverse or dilute the polarisation driven by Facebook and Twitter?

The solutions Sunstein proposes for this very difficult problem are oddly tentative: websites stocked with challenging ideas and deliberative debates, voluntary self-regulation and “serendipity buttons”. He rightly stresses transparency: we know far too little about the algorithms that sift news for our attention on the networks. Facebook has talked about trying to show news that is “engaging” and “interesting”, without ever engaging in detailed public discussion of what these words mean. The disclosure requirements for social networks “require consideration”, Sunstein writes, without saying whether Facebook might have to be required legally to explain precisely how it routes news to almost two billion users.

Sunstein’s most interesting arguments are myth-busters. He questions the “wisdom of crowds”, while refraining from pointing out directly that the single strongest argument against this idea is the inequality of opinions. Not all opinions are equally valuable. He warily suggests what only a very few American voices have so far dared to say: that the First Amendment to the constitution, which guarantees a free press, should not be treated – as the courts have recently tended to do – as an equally strong protection for the freedom of all speech.

Sunstein is nostalgic for the media system and regulation of the past. I spent years working for a daily “general-interest” newspaper (the Times) and regret the decline of those outlets as much as he does, yet there is no reversing the technological and economic changes that have undermined them. It might have been a mistake to deregulate television in the United States, and killing the “fairness doctrine” might have had unforeseen effects, but that does not deal with the dilemmas thrown up by WhatsApp or Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter.

Users of these platforms face the problem of managing abundance. Writers such as Sunstein imply that people who lock themselves in filter bubbles are deplorably unable to break out of their informational isolation. But we all now live in bubbles that we design to make sense of the torrent of information flowing through our phones. Better-designed, heterogeneous bubbles include the unexpected and the challenging.

Yet the problem lies deeper than the quality of your bubble. Polarised societies can no longer agree on how to recognise the truth. Filter bubbles play a part, but so do a preference for emotion over reason, attacks on scientific fact from religion, decades of public emphasis on self-fulfilment, and a belief that political elites are stagnant and corrupt. Like many journalists, Sunstein treats the problem of a malfunctioning communications system as a supply-side matter: the information being generated and distributed ought to be better.

In the case of fake news, that is indisputable. But there is also a demand-side problem, one that hinges on the motives of those consuming information. If, inside their bubbles, people are not curious about alternative opinions, are indifferent to critical thinking and prefer stoking their dislike – of, say, Hillary Clinton – will they have even the slightest interest in venturing outside their comfort zone? Do we have a right to ignore the views of others, or an obligation to square up to them? Millions of Americans believe that one of the most important guarantees in their constitution is the right to be left alone – and that includes being left alone by the New York Times.

Sunstein does not venture far into this territory. He only hints that if we worry about what people know, we must also worry about what kinds of societies we build. Globalisation has reshaped communities, dismantling some and building others online, but the net effect has been to reduce deliberation and increase a tendency to press the “Like” button, or loathe opponents you can’t see or hear. The ability to debate civilly and well may depend on complex social chemistry and many ingredients – elite expertise, education, critical thinking, culture, law – but we need to be thinking about the best recipes. 

George Brock is the author of “Out of Print: Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age” (Kogan Page)

#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media
Cass R Sunstein
Princeton University Press, 328pp, £24.95​

George Brock is a former managing editor of The Times who is now head of journalism at City University in London.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496