Facebook flag wars. Where should the conversation happen?

The recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage and the debate over the legitimacy of the Confederate flag have saturated social media sites with images. Are these symbols fostering productive conversation? 

Jacquelyn Martin/AP/file
In this Friday June 26, 2015, file photo, a man holds a U.S. and a rainbow flag outside the Supreme Court in Washington after the court legalized gay marriage nationwide.

The June 26 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states has had an immediate impact on millions of Americans: It prompted them to add filters to their Facebook profile pictures.

The theme this week is flags. Rainbow flags for same-sex marriage supporters, American flags for same-sex marriage opponents, and Confederate flags for those who see the Confederacy as a vital part of American heritage.

Each of these symbols has been plastered across Facebook and Twitter.

But is the social media banner wave fostering constructive conversation? Is it creating a new normal? Or, is this asking too much of a symbol – which often has a different meaning for different viewers?  

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, expressed his approval of the Supreme court decision in a post on his profile, accompanying a map of the US showing the growth in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups today and 2008.

"I’m so happy for all of my friends and everyone in our community who can finally celebrate their love and be recognized as equal couples under the law," he wrote. 

Soon after the news broke, Facebook released a "celebrate pride" option that allows users to add rainbow filters to their profile pictures. Over 26 million people had implemented the colorful filter as of June 29. 

RightWingNews.com, a conservative news service, responded with an option to "American flag" your profile picture in opposition to Facebook's feature. 

However, The Independent pointed out that being American and supporting LGBT rights are not mutually exclusive – an argument that opponents say clashes with the Judeo-Christian foundation of the United States. Some on Facebook have merged the American and rainbow flags.

On Twitter, there were over 10 million tweets that included the hashtag #LoveWins on the day of the decision. 

One popular political sketch that circulated around Facebook features a Confederate flag being lowered and a gay pride flag being raised. 

The Guardian argues that to compare these two issues – gay rights and racial oppression – is illogical and pits "two important, but very different, struggles for equality against one another in the cheapest way."

Does it really matter whether someone takes a Confederate flag down or puts a rainbow flag or an American flag filter on Facebook? It may. As social psychologist Melanie Tannenbaum explained in 2013, humans tend to be influenced by symbols. 

We're all too susceptible to the powers of peer pressure, or social proof. Our friends, family, and the people around us exert strong influences on our attitudes and behavior, whether intentional or not.

One of the big ways that the people around us exert these influences is through the use of norms, those messages that we send out about what's acceptable, appropriate, and...well, normal....

We don't really care so much about what we should do. We care about what other people do. And then we really, really care about not being different.

Dr. Tannenbaum was writing about a marriage equality symbol on Facebook. She goes on to say why it might be an effective campaign tool:

.. based on everything that we know about our brains and their bafflingly strong desires to fit in with the crowd, the best way to convince people that they should care about an issue and get involved in its advocacy isn't to tell people what they should do – it's to tell them what other people actually do.

And you know what will accomplish that? That's right. Everyone on Facebook making their opinions on the issue immediately, graphically, demonstrably obvious.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.