Why polarisation is so dangerous
And how not to be swept up by the crowd
In the current climate it is important to look at how discussion takes place around contentious issues and how as a global society we are at risk of becoming deliberately polarised. Mindfulness practice gives us clues as to why this is so important.
I was speaking to a friend in another country yesterday and of course the subject of George Floyd came up. My friend said he had trouble at work because during a meeting in which there were people of colour the subject arose and, deliberately trying not to say anything contentious, he mindfully kept ‘Noble Silence’. One of his colleagues noticing his lack of input said ‘why aren’t you saying anything?’ in a manner that clearly denoted their annoyance. The implication being if you don’t join us then you are against us.
This assumption that agreement is always required or else it is considered to be disagreement is part of the problem, but I would argue that allowing Noble Silence or even outright disagreement is necessary no matter what the circumstances. It is called free speech.
In his ‘defence’ my friend explained to me that of course he abhorred what had happened, of course there needed to be an investigation into institutional racism in certain areas of society, but the issue was much wider than that, it was about inequality, it was about the redistribution of wealth, it was about a hundred and one other things not being discussed and he was not going to specifically focus on police brutality because in so doing it diverted the conversation away from the true nature of the problem.
The tabloid newspapers have used the tactic forever. Find a contentious headline, usually one hounding some defenceless individual, blame them for everything and give the readership someone to target their anger at. Keep the readership away from wider discussion, keep them focussed, tell them something they want to hear.
At the moment in England it is statues that have taken to the front pages. You are either for them or against them. Statues that people have ignored for centuries have suddenly been cast as the villains of the piece, they are the focus of hatred.
Winston Churchill has been boarded up like an out of order toilet and the far right desperate for a piss are having to do so on the memorial of a tragic police officer killed in the line of duty instead. Sorry for the uncomfortable image, and apologies to those in other countries who haven’t caught up on the story over here.
Basically the far right, seeing the toppling of a slave trader’s statue in Bristol, have decided that they must protect the statues of the architects of ‘Great Britain’ (the one to which they want us to return), the one ironically based on the slave trade amongst other dreadful things. Ultimately any excuse for a pint or two and a fist in the face of a passing pacifist.
My recollection of the toppling of statues in the past is that the countries where this has occurred have seldom improved as a consequence of that specific act. Think Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussain, think Libya and General Gadaffi, think Zimbabwe and Mr.Mugabe, need I go on? I am not of course advocating for their regimes, but what I am saying is that however cathartic the toppling of statues may have been, the act was necessarily purely symbolic. What followed was not an easy road to travel for the poor souls left to manage the world after regime change.
Enough of statues though. The point I would like to make is that in any difficult situation as soon as the wider issues are drastically narrowed down there becomes the inevitable polarisation of view. ‘I am right and you are wrong’ becomes easier, the narrower one’s field of vision becomes. It is simpler than thinking things through, than having an honest debate, than facing the fact that life just isn’t as straight forward as we want it to be. You don’t have to actually know very much to form an opinion when emotion takes centre stage. And here is the problem. Those who write those contentious headlines know that as soon as they plug into pure emotion they have a captive audience.
Certain politicians (and I shall name no names) do exactly the same. They narrow the debate, they head for the emotions, and without trying they have the audience right where they want them. Floods of immigrants, scroungers on state benefits, foreign governments sending their virus’s to us, clap for the NHS, you have all seen it.
This is why we need to stop and think. By all means abhor acts of violence, speak out when you feel outraged, demonstrate if needs be, but allow others the right to think things through, to take a different stance, to take their time to consider another approach. Allow them to listen to other points of view and to talk to those who see things from a different perspective. Don’t ever forget that if you act from as totally polarised position then it is much easier for you to be manipulated by those who do not have your best interests at heart. As soon as the conversation stops so does the way forward.
The Buddha understood that to listen was the most important way to understand both the self and the world in general and that reflection before action was essential. Why am I doing this thing? What will it’s implications be? Will it really achieve what I wish it to? It is easy to go with the energy of the crowd but sometimes it is the view taken by the person outside of the crowd that changes the way things are.
.
.
