The world seems so bipolar right now! Topics that used to be on an ideological or political spectrum have become dichotomies.
di·chot·o·my. /dīˈkädəmē/
noun ~ a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
It can be dangerous to take a spectrum of ideas and polarize them. We do not live in a Yin or Yang, black or white, world. Where the greatest danger lies in this polarization is in the importance of having a right to free speech. As I said in My one ‘ism’:
“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”
It is getting harder and harder to do this because people find opposing views, equally as hurtful as hateful acts. This is delicate, and very problematic. This is where we need some bipartisan cooperation.
bi·par·ti·san. /bīˈpärdəzən/
adjective ~ of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.
Right now there are untouchable (un-discussable) topics that make dialogue impossible.
di·a·logue. /ˈdīəˌläɡ,ˈdīəˌlôɡ/
verb ~take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.
In a civil society, dialogue is the one problem-solving strategy that should be sacred. To do this, free speech is essential. But right now there is a culture of ‘attack the opposition’ that is very scary. This seems to play out at its worst on Twitter:
~ A prominent person tweets something insensitive or careless and they are attacked as if every fibre of their being is evil.
~ A little-followed user tweets something ‘inappropriate’ and suddenly they are famous in the most infamous of ways.
~ A person with an unpopular opinion tweets that opinion and they become ‘memed’ as the poster child for ridicule on the topic.
We can’t live in a civil society where dialogue is shut down, because at that point hate and violence are too easy to be responses, where dialogue should suffice. We are seeing this happen on different ends of the political spectrums, such as:
~ undemocratic societies shutting down/arresting/killing opposition to those in power.
~ extreme right wing groups being unabashedly hurtful.
~ extreme left wing groups physically attacking journalists and public figures with opposing views.
None of this moves us towards a freer, more open and accepting world. None of this fosters conversations and dialogues that can help us grow as a society. None of this creates an environment where middle ground can be found, to allow the vast majority of us to coexist in a civil society.
We are living in a time when the extremes seem to be the voice of everyone. That’s scary! If someone has a centrist view they are identified by the extremes to share the opposing extremist view. Or, they are considered collaborators, co-conspirators, or unacceptably sympathetic to the other extremist view, (sometimes by both sides simultaneously). And so the vast majority of people that do not hold extremist views are either pushed out of the conversation, (forced to be silent for fear of some form of retribution for holding a ‘wrong’ view), or they are attacked in unfair and hurtful ways.
I don’t pretend to have answers, but I’m pretty sure that two things can move us in the right direction:
- We need to recognize the difference between opposing views shared in discussions and hurtful acts, and treat them differently. When someone does or says something harmful to a person or group of people, legal responses and a judicial process should prevail. When someone says something hurtful (as opposed to hateful/harmful/prejudiced), the response should be dialogue. That dialogue might not bring about any kind of consensus or agreement, but it is what we need to do in a civil society that allows freedom of opinion and speech.
- We need to move away from public attacks and shaming as recourse for every wrong-doing. Treating every mis-step and error a person makes as unforgivable is harmful to our society in two ways: First, it does not provide the space for apology, forgiveness, and learning; Secondly, it actually waters down the response when someone does something truly unacceptable and deplorable… if they are treated no worse than someone who mis-spoke and is apologetic.
We can not let the extremists and the misguided be the voices for the masses. Most people in a civil society have opinions that lie on a spectrum, and not at the polar opposites of each other. To focus on the extremes is to move us towards a society that is less free.
“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”
More on this idea here: Having hard conversations
