Why the polarisation - and what can be done about it?

 “Polarisation”, we are told, has become the predominant feature of contemporary societies. I want to explore why this issue has arisen in the past decade – and what we can do about it.

My first stab at an explanation put it down to a combination of the forces released by the ethic of greed which swept us up in the 1980s AND the technology of internet communication with which we were presented in the late 1990s. It’s so easy now to press a “like” button or tweet our feelings of identity with the particular tribe we belong to

The financial crash of 2008 gave us every reason to be angry – with Trump and Brexit being the initial beneficiaries. Now it’s Covid, global warming, supply chain collapse, war, inflation and energy shortages which are stoking our fears and divisions. We have become gibbering addicts to immediate gratification - such are the forces which Thatcher and Reagan released in 1979

But then I remembered that Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society” which emphasised the contrast between “private affluence” and “public squalour” came out in 1958 – long before Thatcher has even been heard of. Clearly things are more complicated than I had originally thought. The rot had started earlier….but when...and how?

For the moment, I’ll leave these questions hanging because I’ve come across a clutch of books offering ways to deal with the issue of polarisation. Unlike global warming, this seems something on which we can and should be working with friends and neighbours. It also touches on the issue which I’ve become increasingly fascinated by – namely the mental maps, lens, frames and stories we use when trying to make sense of the world. Here are some of the books I encountered -

• “Living in Denial – climate change, emotions and everyday life” Kari Norgaard (2011) A researcher returns to her Norwegian roots to spend a year exploring what one town felt about climate change

• “Active Hope – how to face the mess we’re in without going crazy”; Joanne Macey and Chris Johnstone (2012) A philosopher and social psychologist team up to develop an important idea about hope (about which St Augustine did not say - "Hope has 2 beautiful daughters - anger about how things are and courage to ensure they do not remain so)

• How to have impossible conversations; Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay (2019) a rather formula-ristic book 

• “Still Hopeful – lessons from a lifetime of activism”; Maude Barlow (2021) an admirable activist in issues such as water and globalisation offers some lessons from her work

• “Saving Us – a climate scientist’s case for hope and healing in a divided world”; Katharine Hayhoe (2021) which starts with a nice story about her being confronted with a large poster with the 4-way test of the Rotary Club, throwing away the speech she had prepared and using the 4 principles -

Start with something you have in common. Connect it to why climate change matters to us personally—not the human race in its entirety or the Earth itself, but rather us as individuals. Climate change affects nearly everything that we already care about. It will make us and our children less healthy, our communities less prosperous, and our world less stable. Often, in fact, it already has.

Then, describe what people can and are doing to fix it. There are all kinds of solutions, from cutting our own food waste to powering buses with garbage tor using solar energy to transform the lives of some of the poorest people in the world. There are solutions that clean up our air and our water, grow local economies, encourage nature to thrive, and leave us all better off, not worse. Who doesn’t want that?

This book is packed with stories, ideas, and information that will lead to positive conversations—conversations that bridge gaps rather than dig trenches, conversations that may surprise you with the discovery of common ground. By bonding over the values we truly share, and by connecting them to climate, we can inspire one another to act together to fix this problem. But it all begins with understanding who we already are, and what we already care about —because chances are, whatever that is, it’s already being affected by climate change, whether we know it or not.

Beyond Intractability is an important resource for the polaristion issue

 

Mapping the Common Ground

More in Common is an interesting Think Tank set up very recently with teams in France, Germany, the UK and the US. It's concerned to explore the 

“underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization - and to build more united, resilient and inclusive societies.  

 In its short life, it has commissioned a lot of survey work to try to understand what is going on in Europe and North America and issued a number of reports including, in April, this interim survey Hidden Tribes; Covid19, polarisation and the pandemic which, by September, produced these slides

This week, its British office produced a quite fascinating book-length report which I am still trying to read Britain’s Choice – common ground and divisions in 2020s Britain based on research it commissioned from the prime Yougov survey team.

The report suggests that Britain is not quite as polarised as we might think and can be divided into seven distinct groups - 

– Progressive Activists: A powerful and vocal group for whom politics is at the core of their identity, and who seek to correct the historic marginalisation of groups based on their race, gender, sexuality, wealth and other forms of privilege. They are politicallyengaged, critical, opinionated, frustrated, cosmopolitan and environmentally conscious (13%).

 – Civic Pragmatists: A group that cares about others, at home or abroad, and who are turned off by the divisiveness of politics. They are charitable, concerned, exhausted, community-minded, open to compromise, and socially liberal (13% of the total).

 – Disengaged Battlers: A group that feels that they are just keeping their heads above water, and who blame the system for its unfairness. They are tolerant, insecure, disillusioned, disconnected, overlooked, and socially liberal (12% of the total).

 – Established Liberals: A group that has done well and means well towards others, but also sees a lot of good in the status quo. They are comfortable, privileged, cosmopolitan, trusting, confident, and pro-market (12%).

 – Loyal Nationals: A group that is anxious about the threats facing Britain and facing themselves. They are proud, patriotic, tribal, protective, threatened, aggrieved, and frustrated about the gap between the haves and the have-nots (17% of the total).

– Disengaged Traditionalists: A group that values a well-ordered society and prides in hard work, and wants strong leadership that keeps people in line. They are self-reliant, ordered, patriotic, toughminded, suspicious, and disconnected (18%).

– Backbone Conservatives: A group who are proud of their country, optimistic about Britain’s future outside of Europe, and who keenly follow the news, mostly via traditional media sources. They are nostalgic, patriotic, stalwart, proud, secure, confident, and relatively engaged with politics (15%).

 The Britain we find in this study is not divided into two opposing camps. Britons come together in different formations depending on the issue at hand – 

much like the pieces of coloured glass in a kaleidoscope which cluster in different patterns as the instrument rotates.

This is a strength that may inoculate the UK against one of the most dangerous dimensions of polarisation, which experts describe as ‘conflict extension’ – when members of a group converge across a range of issues. Because the segments come together in different formations depending on the issue at hand, Britain is less likely to become divided as a society into two opposing camps.

– On issues of immigration and race, “Loyal Nationals”, “Disengaged Traditionalists”, and “Backbone Conservatives” come together, while “Progressive Activists”, “Civic Pragmatists”, “Disengaged Battlers”, and “Established Liberals” form another coalition.

 – On issues that involve social trust and institutions, we may see “Established Liberals”, “Civic Pragmatists” and “Backbone Conservatives” coming together on the one hand, while on the other hand “Disengaged Battlers”, “Disengaged Traditionalists” and “Progressive Activists” often align similarly because of their distrust of institutions.

– On issues of inequality and economic policy, Progressive Activists, Loyal Nationals, Civic Pragmatists, Disengaged Battlers, and to a lesser extent, Disengaged Traditionalists, are united.

 – There is widespread agreement on climate issues, led by a strong coalition of Progressive Activists, Civic Pragmatists, and Loyal Nationals.

I said, in the last post, that I was proud to be called a sceptic – but that is not the same as a “contrarian” of whom the sadly-missed Chris Hitchins was the most celebrated exemplar. I have, several times in this blog, bemoaned the failure of progressives to make common cause – or seek “common ground”. It remains an important concept for me

I need a separate post to explain the difference between these distinct aspects of strategic thinking….In the meantime, let me refer to another section of the report which pursues this theme …..

      We find common ground in Britain on many issues, with large majorities which:

– share a sense of national pride in many similar things – such as the NHS, our countryside, and our volunteer tradition

 – feel proud of Britain’s progress on gender equality and becoming a more tolerant and diverse nation – are committed to gender equality and racial equity

– believe that as a society we need to focus on responsibilities as much as rights

 – believe in closing the unfair gap between the haves and have-nots, and making sure that the hard work of key workers and others is better rewarded – want Britain to protect our countryside and lead on climate change

– believe we should strike a balance on difficult issues such as immigration

– feel decision making is too centralised in London

– want political leaders to compromise rather than just sticking to their positions and fighting. 

How America Lost its Mind

Polarisation has got so bad in the US that some people are now calculating, in all seriousness, the prospects of civil war breaking out in the country.

A common language is sometimes a “false friend” – concealing mutual misconceptions – and although I was pleasantly surprised (if not impressed) when I eventually got to the USA in the late 1980s, I am aware that this is not a very easy country to understand. Not for nothing did Martin Amis use the title “The Moronic Inferno” in 1987 for his analysis of its cultural aspects*.

When, five years ago, I first read “The Puritan Gift”, I was struck with how US Business Schools seemed in the 1970s to have destroyed the original puritan spirit - but a long article I came across at the weekend - “How American Lost its Mind” by Kurt Andersen (based on his 450 page book “Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History” 2017) – made me realise that things are a lot more complicated.  The article focuses on the last 60 years and shows how both left and right have contributed to the present madness. 

Little by little for centuries, then more and more and faster and faster during the past half century, we Americans have given ourselves over to all kinds of magical thinking, anything-goes relativism, and belief in fanciful explanation—small and large fantasies that console or thrill or terrify us. And most of us haven’t realized how far-reaching our strange new normal has become.

We Americans believe—really believe—in the supernatural and the miraculous

 Andersen suggests that two factors proved to be the final catalyst for the current madness

- the relativism that came into vogue in the 1960s.

- the digital technology revolution of the 90s

Mix epic individualism with extreme religion; mix show business with everything else; let all that ferment for a few centuries; then run it through the anything-goes ’60s and the internet age. The result is the America we inhabit today - with reality and fantasy weirdly and dangerously blurred and commingled.

What I particularly appreciated about the argument was first its balance – it’s not seeking to allocate blame but rather to seek to understand the various factors which seem to have reached a point of no return (it’s noticeable that Andersen has no solutions to offer - apart from courage and the voice of reason)

I also liked his use of key books to mark the trail of the past half century or so – although, generally, these track the leftist path. The Right’s path tends to be identified more by religious, listening and viewing habits…..Not, however, that the Centre should be forgotten – with The Social Construction of Reality appearing in 1966

….one of the most influential works in their field. Not only were sanity and insanity and scientific truth somewhat dubious concoctions by elites, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann explained—so was everything else. The rulers of any tribe or society do not just dictate customs and laws; they are the masters of everyone’s perceptions, defining reality itself.

To create the all-encompassing stage sets that everyone inhabits, rulers first use crude mythology, then more elaborate religion, and finally the “extreme step” of modern science. “Reality”? “Knowledge”? “If we were going to be meticulous,” Berger and Luckmann wrote, “we would put quotation marks around the two aforementioned terms every time we used them.” “What is ‘real’ to a Tibetan monk may not be ‘real’ to an American businessman.”

When I first read that, at age 18, I loved the quotation marks. If reality is simply the result of rules written by the powers that be, then isn’t everyone able—no, isn’t everyone obliged—to construct their own reality? The book was timed perfectly to become ‘a foundational text in academia and beyond.

I’m reminded of the great Russian saying –

“Don’t fear your friends - because they can only betray you. 

Don’t fear your enemies – because they can only destroy you

But fear the indifferent – because it’s they who allow your friends to betray you and your enemies to destroy you”

I’m a great fan of intellectual histories – and, although this is clearly a popularised version, it seems to offer a rare insight into how the development of mainstream American thinking over several centuries has brought us to this point of open conflict. 

A few weeks ago, Andersen published a sequel to the 2017 book which explains how conservative forces, horrified by what the 1960s had released, get their act together to forge an agenda and bankroll a reaction which brought us neoliberalism “Evil Geniuses - the unmaking of America, a recent history” (2020). I’ve seen the story told many times of the role of the Mont Pelerin Society and the neoliberal ThinkTanks it spawned – but this is the first time I’ve seen such a clear explanation of the connection with the polarisation of American society…..  …..And it’s a nuanced story too – giving due recognition to the ant-government streak I so well remember in the 1960s and early 1970s - which attracted even a "young leftist" like me to writers such as Saul Alinsky and Ivan Illich.    

More to the point it drove the US Young Democrats of the late 1970s and 1980s (like Clinton and Hart) to break with the “oldies” who had been carrying the torch for the New Deal and to side with the new economic right….,   It was, after all, a Democratic House which gave Reagan the licence to drive forward deregulation

Our Desperate Need for Humility

This blog may strike many readers as an opinionated one but let me assure you that I am more of a hesitant mugwump – with my bum on both sides of the fence. I am loathe to choose sides – not least because I can see so many. Indeed it’s why the blog carries the name it does. It’s a celebration of the benefits from looking at the world from different angles. An article by Agnes Callard n the current issue of the Boston Review impressed me both for the clarity of the language and the message it contained about the importance of questioning loose thinking.

This blog may strike many readers as an opinionated one but let me assure you that I am more of a hesitant mugwump – with my bum on both sides of the fence.

I am loathe to choose sides – not least because I can see so many. Indeed it’s why the blog carries the name it does. It’s a celebration of the benefits from looking at the world from different angles. An article by Agnes Callard n the current issue of the Boston Review impressed me both for the clarity of the language and the message it contained about the importance of questioning loose thinking.

Socrates did not write philosophy; he simply went around talking to people. But these 

conversations were so transformative that Plato devoted his life to writing dialogues 

that represent Socrates in conversation. These dialogues are not transcripts of actual 

conversations, but they are nonetheless clearly intended to reflect not only Socrates’s 

ideas but his personality. Plato wanted the world to remember Socrates. Generations 

after Socrates’s death, warring philosophical schools such as the Stoics and the 

Skeptics each appropriated Socrates as figurehead. Though they disagreed on just 

about every point of doctrine, they were clear that in order to count themselves as 

philosophers they had to somehow be working in the tradition of Socrates
Over and over again, Socrates approaches people who are remarkable for their lack 

of humility—which is to say, for the fact that they feel confident in their own 

knowledge of what is just, or pious, or brave, or moderate. You might have supposed 

that Socrates, whose claim to fame is his awareness of his own ignorance, would 

treat these self-proclaimed “wise men” (Sophists) with contempt, hostility, or 

indifference. But he doesn’t. The most remarkable feature of Socrates’s 

approach is his punctilious politeness and sincere enthusiasm. 
The conversation usually begins with Socrates asking his interlocutor: Since you 

think you know, can you tell me, what is courage (or wisdom, or piety, or justice . . .)? 

Over and over again, it turns out that they think they can answer, but they can’t. 

Socrates’s hope springs eternal: even as he walks toward the courtroom to be tried

—and eventually put to death—for his philosophical activity, he is delighted to 

encounter the self-important priest Euthyphro, who will, surely, be able to say what 

piety is. (Spoiler: he’s not.) 

Her article resonates with those of us who are sceptical of the mainstream media (MSM) and the polarisation brought by the social media

Most people steer conversations into areas where they have expertise; they struggle to admit error; they have a background confidence that they have a firm grip on the basics. They are happy to think of other people – people who have different political or religious views, or got a different kind of education, or live in a different part of the world - as ignorant and clueless. They are eager to claim the status of knowledge for everything they themselves think.

Socrates saw the pursuit of knowledge as a collaborative project involving two 

very different roles. There’s you or I or some other representative of Most People, 

who comes forward and makes a bold claim. Then there’s Socrates, or one of his 

contemporary descendants, who questions and interrogates and distinguishes and 

calls for clarification. This is something we’re often still doing—as philosophers, 

as scientists, as interviewers, as friends, on Twitter and Facebook and in many 

casual personal conversations. We’re constantly probing one another, asking, 

“How can you say that, given X, Y, Z?” We’re still trying to understand one another 

by way of objection, clarification, and the simple fact of inability to take what 

someone has said as knowledge. It comes so naturally to us to organize ourselves 

into the knower/objector pairing that we don’t even notice we are living in the 

world that Socrates made. The scope of his influence is remarkable. But equally 

remarkable is the means by which it was achieved: he did so much by knowing, 

writing, and accomplishing—nothing at all. 
And yet for all this influence, many of our ways are becoming far from Socratic. 

More and more our politics are marked by unilateral persuasion instead of 

collaborative inquiry. If, like Socrates, you view knowledge as an essentially 

collaborative project, you don’t go into a conversation expecting to persuade any 

more than you expect to be persuaded. 
By contrast, if you do assume you know, you embrace the role of persuader in advance, 

and stand ready to argue people into agreement. If argument fails, you might tolerate 

a state of disagreement—but if the matter is serious enough, you’ll resort to enforcing 

your view through incentives or punishments. Socrates’s method eschewed the pressure 

to persuade. At the same time, he did not tolerate tolerance. His politics of humility 

involved genuinely opening up the question under dispute, in such a way that neither party 

would be permitted to close it, to settle on an answer, unless the other answered the same. 

By contrast, our politics—of persuasion, tolerance, incentives, and punishment—is deeply 

uninquisitive. 

But the additional message it contains is the value of geniune exchanges – of real conversations and here we enter the realm made famous by Theodor Zeldin (who will be 90 in a few weeks and is perhaps best known for his encouragement of the art of conversation). He is also a maverick historian whose books have searched for answers to three main questions

• Where can a person find more inspiring ways of spending each day?

• What ambitions remain unexplored, beyond happiness, prosperity, faith, love, technology, or therapy?

• What role could there be for individuals with independent minds, or those who feel isolated, different, or are sometimes labeled as misfits?

His work has brought people together to engage in conversations in a variety

 of settings – communal and business – on the basis of some basic principles
His latest book is The Hidden Pleasures of Life It's an epub so does need 

conversion

Socrates did not write philosophy; he simply went around talking to people. But these conversations

 were so transformative that Plato devoted his life to writing dialogues that represent Socrates in 

conversation. These dialogues are not transcripts of actual conversations, but they are nonetheless

 clearly intended to reflect not only Socrates’s ideas but his personality. Plato wanted the world to 

remember Socrates. Generations after Socrates’s death, warring philosophical schools such as the 

Stoics and the Skeptics each appropriated Socrates as figurehead. Though they disagreed on just 

about every point of doctrine, they were clear that in order to count themselves as philosophers they 

had to somehow be working in the tradition of Socrates.
Over and over again, Socrates approaches people who are remarkable for their lack of humility—which 

is to say, for the fact that they feel confident in their own knowledge of what is just, or pious, or 

brave, or moderate. You might have supposed that Socrates, whose claim to fame is his awareness of 

his own ignorance, would treat these self-proclaimed “wise men” (Sophists) with contempt, hostility, 

or indifference. But he doesn’t. The most remarkable feature of Socrates’s approach is his 

punctilious politeness and sincere enthusiasm. 
The conversation usually begins with Socrates asking his interlocutor: Since you think you know, can 

you tell me, what is courage (or wisdom, or piety, or justice . . .)? Over and over again, it turns out that 

they think they can answer, but they can’t. Socrates’s hope springs eternal: even as he walks toward 

the courtroom to be tried—and eventually put to death—for his philosophical activity, he is delighted 

to encounter the self-important priest Euthyphro, who will, surely, be able to say what piety is. 

(Spoiler: he’s not.) 

Her article resonates with those of us who are sceptical of the mainstream media (MSM) and the polarisation brought by the social media

Most people steer conversations into areas where they have expertise; they struggle to admit error; they have 

a background confidence that they have a firm grip on the basics. They are happy to think of other people - people 

who have different political or religious views, or got a different kind of education, or live in a different part of 

the world - as ignorant and clueless. They are eager to claim the status of knowledge for everything they themselves think. 

Socrates saw the pursuit of knowledge as a collaborative project involving two very different roles. 

There’s you or I or some other representative of Most People, who comes forward and makes a bold claim. Then 

there’s Socrates, or one of his contemporary descendants, who questions and interrogates and distinguishes and 

calls for clarification. This is something we’re often still doing—as philosophers, as scientists, as interviewers, as 

friends, on Twitter and Facebook and in many casual personal conversations. We’re constantly probing one another,

 asking, “How can you say that, given X, Y, Z?” We’re still trying to understand one another by way of objection, 

clarification, and the simple fact of inability to take what someone has said as knowledge. It comes so naturally 

to us to organize ourselves into the knower/objector pairing that we don’t even notice we are living in the world 

that Socrates made. The scope of his influence is remarkable. But equally remarkable is the means by which it was 

achieved: he did so much by knowing, writing, and accomplishing—nothing at all. 
And yet for all this influence, many of our ways are becoming far from Socratic. More and more our politics 

are marked by unilateral persuasion instead of collaborative inquiry. If, like Socrates, you view knowledge as an 

essentially collaborative project, you don’t go into a conversation expecting to persuade any more than you expect 

to be persuaded. 

By contrast, if you do assume you know, you embrace the role of persuader in advance, and stand ready to argue 

people into agreement. If argument fails, you might tolerate a state of disagreement—but if the matter is serious 

enough, you’ll resort to enforcing your view through incentives or punishments. Socrates’s method eschewed the 

pressure to persuade. At the same time, he did not tolerate tolerance. His politics of humility involved genuinely 

opening up the question under dispute, in such a way that neither party would be permitted to close it, to settle 

on an answer, unless the other answered the same. By contrast, our politics—of persuasion, tolerance, incentives, 

and punishment—is deeply uninquisitive. 

But the additional message it contains is the value of geniune exchanges – of real conversations and here we enter the realm made famous by Theodor Zeldin (who will be 90 in a few weeks and is perhaps best known for his encouragement of the art of conversation). He is also a maverick historian whose books have searched for answers to three main questions

• Where can a person find more inspiring ways of spending each day?

• What ambitions remain unexplored, beyond happiness, prosperity, faith, love, technology, or therapy?

• What role could there be for individuals with independent minds, or those who feel 

• isolated, different, or are sometimes labeled as misfits?

His work has brought people together to engage in conversations in a variety of settings 

– communal and business – on the basis of some basic principles
His latest book is The Hidden Pleasures of Life It's an epub so does need conversion

A Zeldin Resource

http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/book-conversation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263330798_Zeldin_Theodore_1998_Conversation

http://www.oxfordmuse.com/media/muse-brochure[final].pdf

hidden pleasures of life http://www.anilgomes.com/uploads/2/3/9/7/23976281/gomes_tls.pdf

http://delarue.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/OLC-April-2011_DeLaRue_Art-of-Conversation.pdf