anti-polarization as a civic virtue

[[ 2022-02-12 ]] #civics #politics

Being anti-polarized means seeking synthesis and being nuanced. It means playing devils advocate and to not point fingers. To take on shared responsibility for one’s own agency and commitment to engaging in the world from a well grounded understanding of current events (as opposed to a delusional understanding: [[ how much of human behaviour is motivated by delusional thinking? ]]).

In today’s world, being anti-polarized is a civic virtue. To be more civically virtuous we need to be able to bridge across divides. To rally people around our shared interest and values in order to align our efforts in co-creating a future we will be happy to leave to younger generations.

I also think that giving this kind of tendency a name like “anti-polarization” helps frame it in a positive light. I genuinely think of it as a civic virtue, but it could easily be viewed rather as apathy, disengagement and even being a “smart ass”. In some ways, this builds off my earlier thinking: [[ self-determinism as a way to approach politics more sensibly ]].

In regards to the “smart ass” negative connotation, I think this is an important concern to address. What I mean here is that to be anti-polarized is to push back when someone states something in a polarizing way. It means to call out that way of (outrage-driven) thinking because it doesn’t serve our shared responsibilities to the future. More polarization is not going to solve our wicked challenges or enable new opportunities for human flourishing.

When people get “called out” or “challenged” it immediately triggers an ego defence (which is why you should [[ never directly contradict someones ego ]] and explains [[ hitting the wall of ego - barriers to productive discourse ]]). Treading such waters must be done lightly.

It takes skill and patience to be anti-polarized while not coming across as a self-centred pseudo-intellect.

Lastly, a healthy epistemic commons is the foundational feature of a functioning democracy, and the foundation of an epistemic commons begins with the way we communicate with our fellow citizens. Or, as Noema magazine puts it, resilient civic architectures:

“Fundamentally, as the Berggruen Institute report on “Renewing Democracy in the Digital Age” spells out, the major democracies need to rebuild their civic architecture to become more socially “resilient” to the politics of polarization, whether populist demagoguery or cancel culture.” ¹