Breaking the Echo Chamber: Lessons on Political Discourse from Jubilee’s ‘Surrounded’ Video

In Jubilee Surrounded: “Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative?”, the rules are straightforward.

1. Of the group of 25 liberal college students in the outside circle, those who would like to speak rush to the middle once the “hot seat” is empty to get a chance to debate the 1 conservative on topics that change every 20 minutes.
2. If someone in the outside circle wants a different speaker in the hot seat, they can raise their flag. If the majority of those remaining in the outside circle raise their flag, the person in the hot seat will have to return to the outside circle for the cycle to continue again.

Through the video, I was constantly on the edge of my seat viewing the rapid succession of wins and losses from either side of the debate. In my mind, I too was one of the people in the video, formulating my stance on the claims made and raising my imaginary flag as the argument weakened.

Though I was completely captivated for the entire duration of the video, I couldn’t ignore my disappointment as the video failed in so many ways to ensure fruitful conversation. “What ended up happening is a lot of people in the circle would raise their red flags when they wanted to talk,” reflects Dean Withers, one of the college students in the video. The shifts of speakers in the hot seat were so ineffectually frequent that it was rare for many of the speakers to complete their argument before getting removed from the hot seat.

However, I was even more disappointed by how many times I found myself raising my imaginary flag, as the expected constructive debate unraveled to underdeveloped claims and unsolicited remarks.

In one argument regarding if college is a scam, Kirk argues that the availability of jobs that don’t require a degree, combined with high student debt and dropout rates, supports the claim that college is a fraud. Maren responds, “Why is it not worth it to try and to push yourself to get a better education and go further?” Rather than acknowledging Kirk’s perspective, Maren evaded the crux of the debate and reverted to the idealistic notion of personal growth, the argument that she planned beforehand. Rather than addressing the concerns mentioned of the value of a college degree economically, she chose to bypass the critical thinking needed for a constructive debate.

Above all, the issue that stuck out to me the most was the lack of active listening and decorum from both sides. For a video that promised to be an exchange of ideas, it was shocking how often both sides of the table became so focused on getting their voices heard that the debate sometimes unraveled into so many layered interruptions it was nearly impossible for the viewer, and either debater, to truly hear each other, which makes me wonder if that was even their goal at all. In the moments when they stopped speaking over one another, they propelled misunderstandings of the other arguments in rapid succession rather than allowing the other to speak and clarify, which I see no aim to other than releasing to leave the other’s moral character and argument to seem weaker by any means, even if it meant reducing the legitimacy of the debate.

In many cases, especially the ones I mentioned above, the moment the debates turn from constructive to destructive, the default focus for both speakers becomes being a winner of whoever they represent, conservative or liberal, at any means. This isn’t just a phenomenon that only occurs in the Jubilee videos. The discussions from the video are also applicable in politics today because of the strong partisanship in the US. Major party campaigns have been surrounded around creating a community that people would be unwilling to stray from, even if it means disregarding any other opinion. Harris’ “Brat” campaign strategy dangerously targets young people on addictive social media sites known for fostering Fear of Missing Out, inevitably creating a pressure to conform to the popular narrative and suppresses alternative viewpoints. However, Trump’s reliance on creating a loyal community that would conform to the popular narrative is incomparable, with his MAGA rallies being described as blindingly fervent havens for those that feel marginalized and therefore seek echo chambers to avoid further marginalization in their unwavering right leaning communities. It doesn’t help that there’s a lack of civic education in America. With many schools lacking the proper resources for those classes, and some states banning civic discourse altogether, there’s no need for a stage, an audience threatening to veto your voice and ticking clocks to create a high stakes environment. Across America, in situations of political discourse, there’s a likelihood where you’re already walking into a hostile environment where others are unwilling to unbind from their party’s ideals or engage in critical civic thought all together.

Even still, as ineffectual as it seems, engaging in political discourse and simultaneously bringing any of your knowledge of civic education along is the best solution.  Engaging in conversations with individuals who hold differing backgrounds and perspectives is an invaluable opportunity to foster a new awareness with different viewpoints. The best way to stop passively conforming to dominant narratives in your community is to begin with yourself by fostering open dialogue, so that in the future, political discourse doesn’t resemble the divisive and ineffective result of the Jubilee video.