Poles Apart

The common ground beneath our feet

I just finished recording an interview for Post Carbon Institute’s Deep Dive on political polarisation with Professor Jennifer McCoy (which you’ll be able to watch here at the end of the month). Polarisation is a word we hear a lot these days in an increasingly divided world, and normally attributed to the machinations of the right wing as they seek to stir up hatred and mistrust throughout society. However, the nature of polarisation is that, at its extreme, both camps feel that same disgust for the other, making discussion, collaboration and resolution increasingly difficult. This has been playing on my mind over the past weeks both as the American presidential campaigns pick up speed, and as British commentators offer their analysis on the recent riots. Simply, neither camp is open to discussion.

Certainly, there is a valid question of whether or not engaging in discussion with hateful people is helpful, given it can lead to validating extreme messages. A good example of this is how often Nigel Farage—instrumental in the Brexit campaign, newly elected MP and leader of the Reform Party in the UK—has been trotted out on mainstream media to discuss what can only be described as fringe views. The media lubricated his ascension, validating his niche until it became talking points, and then a movement. During the recent election in the UK, data scientists were quick to point out the discrepancy in how often Farage was given a platform in comparison to Green Party candidates. His voice carried farther because he was given bigger reach. Yet, whilst there is a question to be raised on the necessity of debating nefarious men like Farage and Trump who are clearly manipulating political anxieties for their own gain (Jennifer calls these political entrepreneurs), that doesn’t mean we should question engaging with those most vulnerable to the messaging of political entrepreneurs, the groups who have been left behind by centrist politics; those who feel they haven’t been heard. The men in power who exploit these vulnerabilities through the capillaries of corrupt media systems ought to be held accountable for playing fast and loose with our democracies. It would be unjust to put their followers in the same camp—whilst we all bear responsibility for our societies, the majority are relatively powerless. This is why the material conditions of most people’s lives are falling whilst wealth inequality is increasing. We all have real concerns; to see a way through we all need to be heard.

This does not mean platforming outright racism, but navigating dialogue away from Murdoch-driven catchphrases towards the real anxieties that keep people up at night: How will I pay my bills? How will my kids fare in this world? How will I find work? How will I keep my pride? Who am I, in all of this? Political entrepreneurs are master manipulators of these anxieties, creating demons out of marginalised groups, and fabricating a sense of identity for those who to whom they speak, those who have not been spoken to in decades. Yet, in doing so, they erode the commonality of these concerns, dehumanising othered groups until both camps think there is only space for one to survive. Factor in resource scarcity at a global level, and the civil unrest on our streets will soon pour over our borders, as warned against by Singapore’s Prime Minister who last week said: “We have seen what happens in other countries when the broad middle falls behind: societies begin to fracture and collapse. Do not assume this cannot happen here. It can.” There are already too many examples worldwide.

I have been concerned by the war imagery used on by some on the Left in the UK since the riots. Phrases like “we are at war” and identifying “the enemy” have been swiftly deployed in response to the racist violence that swept across the country. I understand, I do. Last year, I used similar imagery myself when discussing the political corruption impeding our response to the climate crisis. And certainly, why wouldn’t we want to be at war against racism?

Because whilst I have no doubt racism helped stoke the flames of the violence, branding all people who participated “racists” ignores the material reality of a country mired in inequality with opportunity, health, education and prospects plummeting. Without understanding the real concerns of those we disagree with, we too easily fall into hatred and disgust, we begin to other those with whom we need to seek commonality, for how else will we gain the political momentum for social change without a majority? We may never be able to, nor want to, create a homogenous society in which we all share the same political beliefs, but inviting one another to the table to figure out what we have in common is how we share space and break bread, instead of breaking windows. It is maddening to see how little America learned from Trump’s campaign in 2016, maddening to witness the Democrats assume people will know what is best for them without offering a vision of something better. We are not a stupid species, but we are emotional, and reactive when we perceive threats to our well-being—like every other living thing. Barring entry to discussion only fans the flames of such emotional reactivity. As David Graeber wrote, in going to war you have already decided there is no possibility of discussion, and given we are beings of language, you have thus already decided your enemy is not human.

There is a way through, globally. We could forsake the pageantry of international conferences to produce binding international legislations and treaties which promote resource-pooling, global regulation and fair trade. There is a way through nationally: Deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, voting reform, referendums, rewriting constitutions so they don’t facilitate winners who take all. There is a way through on the streets, beautifully illustrated by the city of Glasgow which dramatically decreased knife gang-violence by inviting the mothers of these young men to speak directly to their sons and their sons’ “enemies”. The first piece of humanity with which we make it through is not the tongue, but the ear; there is no way through if we don’t listen. There is no way through if we don’t find common ground. We are drawing battle lines on a shrinking world; how do we expect people to react with their backs against the wall? The only solution is to remove the wall and offer, instead, a chair.

Such work is the hardest of all work, as I’m sure we can all attest to the turbulence of personal relationships. Defending one’s decisions, beliefs, and even sense of self is perfectly understandable. But conflicts are not resolved in silence, nor in fear. They are resolved with a willingness to move towards one another and hear their version of events, a version which they experience as infinitely real as your own. These are the lines between us we must find and blur, breaking down these differences until we arrive at the shared values and terrors which make us build walls in the first place. For there is no way through a wall; either we all scramble over the top, or work together, brick by brick, to bring it down.

---