Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

Social Disorder

Cass Sunstein exaggerates the web’s polarizing effects

By Ethan Porter April 23, 2017
Social Disorder 1
Errata Carmona for The Chronicle Review

F or more than 15 years, in between serving as a law professor and as the nation’s top regulatory officer, not to mention writing a small library of books and articles, Cass Sunstein has investigated the extent to which innovations in media and technology are transforming American politics.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

F or more than 15 years, in between serving as a law professor and as the nation’s top regulatory officer, not to mention writing a small library of books and articles, Cass Sunstein has investigated the extent to which innovations in media and technology are transforming American politics.

His Republic.com (Princeton University Press, 2001) examined the problem during a time when our ability to filter the news was something of a novelty. The sequel, Republic .com 2.0 (Princeton, 2007), explored similar questions in the context of the “blogosphere.” #Republic (Princeton, 2017), his new book, replaces the guarded optimism of his previous works (including 2006’s Infotopia) with a world-weary resignation that serious damage may have already been done.

REVIEW

#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media By Cass Sunstein

(Princeton University Press)

Across those books, Sunstein has repeatedly invoked Benjamin Franklin’s famous description of American government: “A republic, if you can keep it.” Sunstein seems less certain than ever that we can. The republic is under siege, he argues, because of our ever-increasing ability to isolate ourselves in ideological and partisan enclaves. These enclaves are not physical but virtual, and they are of our own design. With each click and link we share, we are passing along information to technology companies to better curate a unique “Daily Me.”

Coined by the tech evangelist and MIT Media Lab co-founder Nicholas Negroponte in 1995, the “Daily Me” connotes a news site with information pertaining only to us, our likes and dislikes. What we do not want to see, the Daily Me excludes; what we want, it brings to the fore.

Once a mere metaphor, the Daily Me has now become reality, mostly but not exclusively via our Facebook feeds. For Negroponte, the Daily Me was a promising vision; for Sunstein, it is closer to a nightmare. For one thing, it impedes our ability to encounter information outside of our comfort zone. If we consume only content that aligns with our beliefs, democracy — which depends on compromise and a willingness to agree to disagree — becomes harder to sustain.

For another, the Daily Me reduces the frequency and power of our shared experiences. We spend our days only with the like-minded and do not build the bridges that connect us across the chasms of ideology and party. As Sunstein writes, “Unplanned and unchosen encounters often turn out to do a great deal of good, for individuals and society at large.” Those encounters are becoming rarer.

Baviera Spring Books final cover
Spring Books
In this special spring books issue, Peter Dougherty, stepping down from Princeton University Press’s directorship, says editorial imagination is the key to scholarly publishing’s future. Bruce Walsh, of the U. of Regina Press, explains how he plans to open Canadians’ eyes to their nation’s history. We profile Chris Lebron, whose new book contextualizes #BlackLivesMatter, and Yascha Mounk, whose theories about threats to liberal democracy have turned out to be more timely than he wished. Also featured are reviews of books on writing, social media’s effects on civic order, and capitalism’s contradictions. Then, just for fun, play Promotion, which combines strategic thrills and existential nausea for a one-of-a-kind gaming experience.
  • Promotion
  • Editorial Imagination Can Save Academic Presses
  • Scholar Seeks to Reframe Black Lives Matter Campaign
  • ‘A Voice for Many Peoples’
  • Writing Better Won’t Cure Your Academic Woes
  • Contradictions of Capital
  • A Political Theorist Joins the Resistance

The Daily Me, and our reliance on it, can leave real harm in its wake. It might make us hate members of the opposing political party. (This is known as “partyism” in the academic literature.) Some might eventually turn to violence, attacking those with whom they disagree. And, insofar as it restricts our choices to those that follow from previous choices, our reliance on the Daily Me might damage our freedom. One learns only what one already wishes to learn, sees what one already wishes to see. What appears to be infinite choice quickly becomes a restricted set.

A lthough most of the research referred to in #Republic was conducted before the 2016 election, Sunstein’s concerns have become only more urgent since then. The widespread availability of conspiracy theories, the ubiquity of clickbait “fake news,” and the polarization of political media all very likely played some role in the electoral outcome.

Sunstein is hardly the first to consider these questions. He is not primarily an empirical researcher (by my count, only one of the empirical papers discussed in the book was written by Sunstein himself). He is instead a voracious reader and synthesizer, clarifying the theoretical stakes of empirical work that others are pioneering. But he’s a fine writer, adept at turning dry academic research into (mostly) readable prose. His ability to articulate how media and technology pose threats to American democracy is one of his strengths.

As with many of his books, #Republic uses descriptions of other academic studies to buttress his main argument. The book sometimes reads as if other social scientists have been, intentionally or otherwise, engaged in testing out — and largely affirming — Sunstein’s fears. Indeed, many scholars from disparate fields, including political science, economics, communications, and psychology, have been investigating the phenomena that he writes about.

Yet relying on the empirical research of others has a major risk: It is unlikely that all available evidence supports the points on offer. This is certainly the case here. While Sunstein dwells on research that paints people as unwilling to think outside their partisan boxes, a rich literature has emerged that challenges this consensus — literature that Sunstein doesn’t engage with. For instance, as the political scientist John Bullock and others have shown, the partisan discrepancy on key factual questions shrinks considerably with small monetary incentives — meaning that partisans’ interpretations of the empirical world are not hopelessly divided. In similar work, the political scientist Seth Hill and his co-authors have demonstrated that contrary to prevailing assumptions, people have the capacity to learn political facts, even when the facts are complicated. Meanwhile, the “backfire effect,” which proposes that people become more committed to misinformation when the facts challenge their partisan commitments, has been seriously challenged by several papers, including one I’ve co-authored.

ADVERTISEMENT

This isn’t to say that people don’t self-segregate, or that partisanship doesn’t affect judgment. They do, and it does. But Sunstein’s anxieties are frustratingly imprecise given the state of available evidence. For example, he seems to believe that the lack of overlap between left- and right-wing news sites is a major problem, going so far as to suggest that The Weekly Standard and The Nation should agree to trade advertisements on each other’s websites to introduce people to counterpartisan news. Recent research by Andrew Guess, however, has shown that Americans have a surprisingly large appetite for centrist online news. Only a small (if influential) segment of the population consumes the kind of ideologically driven news that Sunstein is most concerned about. (And his idea of cross-partisan outreach hardly seems persuasive: One imagines a Nation reader laughing off a link to The Weekly Standard.)

Sunstein’s pessimism may be precisely what is preventing him from offering bolder solutions. While acknowledging the enormous role that Facebook plays in the trends he finds so worrisome, he expresses hope that the company will take action on its own. Perhaps, he suggests, Facebook should offer users ways to see articles that challenge their political beliefs, or should send them into entirely unfamiliar territory.

But there need not be a “perhaps” about it — the company should compel users to confront such information. And if the company does not want to do so, then perhaps — as with previous firms that have loomed like colossi over the media and communications landscapes — the government should take a more active role in regulating it. (Well, at least a hypothetical future government, one concerned with the public interest.)

Such an aggressive approach to regulation might not be palatable to our former regulatory czar. But if we wish to keep the republic, it might be necessary.

Ethan Porter is an assistant professor in the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

A version of this article appeared in the April 28, 2017, issue.
Read other items in Spring Books.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Exposure to Other Viewpoints Is Vital to Democracy
Know-Nothing Nation
Facebook and Falsehood

More News

Graphic vector illustration of a ship with education-like embellishments being tossed on a black sea with a Kraken-esque elephant trunk ascending from the depth against a stormy red background.
Creeping concerns
Most Colleges Aren’t a Target of Trump (Yet). Here’s How Their Presidents Are Leading.
Photo-based illustration of calendars on a wall (July, August and September) with a red line marking through most of the dates
'A Creative Solution'
Facing Federal Uncertainty, Swarthmore Makes a Novel Plan: the 3-Month Budget
Marva Johnson is set to take the helm of Florida A&M University this summer.
Leadership & governance
‘Surprising': A DeSantis-Backed Lobbyist Is Tapped to Lead Florida A&M
Students and community members protest outside of Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.
Campus Activism
One Year After the Encampments, Campuses Are Quieter and Quicker to Stop Protests

From The Review

Glenn Loury in Providence, R.I. on May 7, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Glenn Loury on the ‘Barbarians at the Gates’
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin
Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin
Illustration showing a stack of coins and a university building falling over
The Review | Opinion
Here’s What Congress’s Endowment-Tax Plan Might Cost Your College
By Phillip Levine

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin