Us And Them

There is little doubt that in the 21st century we are living in a more divided world than ever. I could write a book on the reasons why, but it would not be particularly insightful or contribute much to the zeitgeist. However, there are certain things which seem to me to stand out as the more insidious symptoms of our modern division.

It strikes me that for any given issue that becomes elevated in the public consciousness there is a prevailing mindset that you either have to be on one side or the other. Two sides to every story right? So for many people it seems perfectly normal to be either for or against, pro or anti. From the man/woman on the street to whole political and social movements, this polarisation of viewpoints is pervasive. Look at the Brexit debate in the UK, the pro-life/pro-choice debate in the US, the rise of far-right groups and antifa, the fact that almost all political debate is framed in terms of left-wing or right-wing, the list is practically endless. It is as if masses of people can only see the world in black and white.

The startling thing is that if you do not 'fit in' to either camp, if you dare to notice any of the myriad shades of grey and find your views therein, you are accused of 'sitting on the fence'. You are a misfit, and it seems that that is the only thing on which the two sides can agree. Often their unity in condemning the dissenting voice that doesn't take sides makes them forget all about their bitter division. To me this is an obvious indication that we are not meant to be in such conflict with each other, but to them, well I can only surmise that having a unifying enemy makes the conflict easier to justify. This 'take one side or the other' thing, it is at best a gross oversimplification of what are often complex issues, and at its worst a deliberate polarisation of the debate in order to satisfy an agenda. There are not just two sides to a story.

Labeling plays a large part in the isolation of people into one group or another. Beyond the obvious practical and essential need to have a name for certain groups in societies, from a sociological, political and philosophical viewpoint, in order to analyse and understand the world, labeling people is almost always detrimental to their status and identity. For example, understanding the 'haves and have nots' helps us get a grip on why inequality is such a factor in societal breakdown, but banding everyone into one or other of these camps just sows the seeds of division. A politician can make highly valid, salient, valuable points on pressing issues of the utmost importance to huge swathes of the population but be ignored or even reviled purely because of the party he represents. An 'expert in their field' can hold the balance of future policy direction during a debate or the fate of people's lives during a court case in their hands, only to be discredited later when it is too late to change the outcome and the damage has already been done.

It is easy to use the labels bestowed onto people to separate, segregate and divide them. It is easy to disregard someones views because we have fitted them into a neat little box and decided we find that box distasteful or to put them up on a pedestal because their views chime nicely with our own. It is an extension of our inbuilt human fallibility, and subsequent refusal to use the checks and balances of self-scrutiny, to review and revise our thinking and behaviour accordingly. It is not so easy to keep our minds and hearts open to other people's views, and the more uncomfortable or extreme we find these views the harder it becomes to extend ourselves to understanding. In its ultimate form it is cognitive dissonance that prevents us from being able to accept differences of view and prevent the divisions between us.

It is when we are faced with inhumanity in the world though that I feel our divisions are most sorely and harshly evident. When there is an atrocity at home, such as the Manchester attack in the UK just over a year ago, which killed dozens, I see outpourings of empathy and sorrow, coupled with a sense of defiance towards the perpetrators, encapsulated in an overall moment of national unity. A wave of empathy. These events show how humanity can be at its best when things are at there worst. When there is an atrocity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Gaza or any other foreign land, I see nothing. Tens of dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of people die. I see no outpourings. There is no empathy. These events show how humanity can simply turn a blind eye and decide not to care when the atrocity is not in their back yard.

True empathy is not selective. You either care about humanity or you do not. If you feel empathy for the victims of the Manchester attacks, but not for the dead civilians of the multiple conflicts and atrocities that take place all the time in far-off lands, then I believe you need to ask yourself some very searching questions. Perhaps it is human nature to be this way, but I suggest that we fight that shit with every breath we can muster, if we want our children to have any real future in this world.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are".

Copyright © Richard C. Greenlow. All rights reserved.