Today, one would be hard-pressed to find a news source that provided information to the public without a perceived twist on the narrative. Websites such as AllSides have brought attention to this notion of partisan reporting and compiled various articles from “the left,” “the right,” and “the center” to cover the same event from differing perspectives. Whether the news comes from social media celebrities, radio hosts, or mainstream cable television broadcasters, their stories contain an element of subjectivity ranging from blatantly opinionated assertions to near-invisible suggestions that only become apparent in hindsight through careful analysis and discourse. Furthermore, technological advances such as the internet have provided platforms for more opinionated individuals to post articles so laden with subjective claims and speculations that their narratives become more based on imagination than good-faith effort journalism. This becomes problematic when many individuals trust these sources to provide them with easy-to-digest, concrete reporting on what to believe, and any conflicting narrative is quickly chalked up as “fake news.”
This idea of building agreeable narratives to support social or political goals is not new. Indeed, Plato identified a similar issue over 2,000 years ago. Techniques of communication involving what Plato defined as “poetry,” when applied to the masses, have proven problematic because of the likelihood and risk that such techniques will be used for destructive purposes. While the form of communication in itself is neither inherently constructive nor destructive, it does have a high potential to be abused for personal or political gains at the expense of compassion and civil discourse.
While Plato discussed the nature and consequences of poetry, he failed to provide any concrete solution to mitigate the potential negative effects. A more contemporary political philosopher emerging from the progressive movement, John Dewey, suggested that a potential defense against divisive poetry lies in educating the people on how to process this information rather than relying on government legislation. In this article, I will define Plato’s understanding of “poetry” in order to better explore his concerns about the misuse of poetry as applied to political stability and individual wellbeing. Next, I will apply Plato’s understanding of poetry to contemporary divisive rhetoric. Finally, I will discuss John Dewey’s suggestion to decrease an individual’s overreliance on single-sourced news.
The Platonic Definition of Poetry and the 1776 Report
To the modern reader, poetry is usually perceived as a particular genre of written literature that utilizes rhythm and rhyme to convey ideas through imagery and analogy. Yet Plato’s conception of poetry was much broader than the aforementioned definition and is distinguished by four key elements. First, poetry uses mythologies or stories, typically written about significant past events, to build a common narrative and unite a group of people. Second, poetry is written to appeal to its audiences’ emotions. This could be an appeal to both positive emotions, such as happiness and compassion, or negative emotions, such as fear and anger. Third, poetry is written for a specific purpose, such as outlining an accepted framework for morality, to inspire an audience to action. Finally, poetry is made to be desirable and to entertain a mass audience.
This Platonic definition of poetry can be applied to many political documents today, such as the recent 1776 Report released by the former Trump administration. The 1776 Report’s stated intent is to present “the history and principles of the founding of the United States” and educate the masses in a way that is “accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.” However, the content of the report was widely seen as a false and inaccurate representation of historical events with the true intent of promoting specific Republican talking points and crafting a very specific narrative of what constitutes a “true American.” This report may have spoken to and united a select group of individuals on their common understanding of America, faith in the Trump administration, and their anger against people with opposing political opinions. In fact, the narrative presented in this report may have increased and legitimized their hostile feelings toward these groups. Furthermore, this report gives the impression that the Trump administration and similarly minded politicians are the only people who can protect those American values.
Potential Problems with Poetry
Although poetic rhetoric can be misused, poetry as a means of communication is not in itself problematic. Indeed, Plato even proposed using a form of poetry to unite the citizens in his idea of a perfect city during his first discussion on poetry. Specifically, he included a discussion of whether poetry can be used to facilitate just and virtuous behavior by crafting stories of heroic people worthy of emulation. The hope would be to lay the foundation for citizens to emotionally connect with these characters and then strive to embody and display the same characteristics. Plato also raises the possibility of poetry as a basis for imitation such that it can be used as a positive measure to promote just practices and unite citizens under a common truth. His conception of justice in the city is used synonymously with the idea of the “common good,” which constitutes a form of social cohesion that allows for political stability where individuals are best able to meet their maximum potentials.
However, Plato’s main focus remained potential problems with poetry stemming from its appeal to human emotions and capacity to inspire a large audience to action. He feared that these consequences would ultimately destabilize the government and stop people from reaching their fullest potentials. One danger Plato notes relates to the propensity for individuals to idolize poets and take their stories to be a representation of absolute truth. If the audience is presented with a story that appeals to their desired or traditional assumptions about a given topic, then it is likely that they are predisposed to agree with the story proposed by the poet. If the narrative is geared toward social unity and individual flourishing, it may be beneficial. However, if it attacks and alienates others, it can make people less likely to listen to dissenting opinions or question the given narrative. In Plato’s opinion, poetry and idolization usually result in the latter.
Returning to the contemporary example of the 1776 Report, one can liken Trump, along with his administration, to a modern-day poet. The sentiments expressed in this report may resonate with many Trump supporters and fuel their confidence to speak out against any perceived liberal-biases in school curriculums. This aggressive call for action to restore “American values” further demonizes anyone who does not adhere to their specific ingroup. Additionally, individuals who idolize Trump are likely to refuse to acknowledge anyone who contradicts him, which will make it much more difficult to engage in civil discourse.
While Plato identifies potential issues with poetry, he does not provide a concrete and realistic solution to these problems. Ultimately, he concludes one of his dialogues suggesting that poetry does not belong in an ideal city. Poetry as a method of communication is so powerful that it could easily destroy the balance of the city, and he believed the poetry created by his contemporaries was more harmful than beneficial to the public good. That said, he does concede that if poetry could be used to support the common good in a way that justifies the high potential for misuse, it may be worth the risk to reintroduce it into the city.
The Problem of Poetry Today and Potential Solutions
In today’s age of globalism with populations having access to seemingly unlimited amounts of information through the internet, the notion of eliminating poetry from the polity seems impossible. The perception of poetry as a simple means of entertainment and artistic expression, however antiquated relative to modern social media, is fundamentally interwoven into our modern-day globalized society. Yet when considered from the Platonian perspective, technological advances such as television, the internet, and social media platforms have simply given rise to modern “poets” who can quickly and easily influence thousands of individuals worldwide.
Moreover, Plato’s admonition to maintain strict censorship of poetry may not be possible in a country like the United States which strives to promote the principles of free speech, which provides a large platform for people to espouse poetic rhetoric that is both for and against the public good. Yet the ramifications of not being able to control the flow of information provide a space for the divisive poetic rhetoric that Plato predicted could have disastrous consequences for the state.
Over a thousand years after Plato, an American political theorist, John Dewey, proposed a potential solution to help decrease the potential negative consequences of poetic rhetoric. Dewey was part of the American progressive movement and felt that the justification for social inequality was based on a mythic understanding of the past that was created to serve the rich’s interests. While he agreed with Plato insofar as seeing the powerful impact poetry can have on people’s actions, he did not think that a ban on poetry was the solution. Instead, Dewey emphasized the importance of public education as a proper function of the state to enable individuals to have the necessary “knowledge of the facts” to better address their common needs without regard for traditional norms. In doing so, the individual would be less likely to fall victim to adverse poetic rhetoric.
This sort of education could manifest itself in a myriad of ways. For example, public education could focus on interacting with multiple types of content and opinions in order to gain a more balanced view of a certain event. Additionally, individuals could also be given direction on how to analyze or consider information “sources” and the potential for bias, accuracy, and rational messaging. Finally, it might help to encourage heightened scrutiny of messages that appeal to emotions.
The consideration of “poetry” as a means of mass communication is a seemingly timeless discussion. While it is not likely, or even desirable, to eliminate poetry in its entirety, it does seem worth encouraging and enabling the populace to identify poetic rhetoric and to consider listening to a diverse range of poets and poetry.