I’ve been thinking a lot about cancel culture in relation to quick responses to posts or headlines or people. Polarization. A lack of thorough reading or viewing. This kind of thing.
Two things recently made me want to dig deeper. First, I’ve been listening to The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling after it came highly recommended from Dr. Victoria Powell, writer of The Gallery Companion. WOW. Such a fascinating show about the way Rowling was first cancelled by certain groups especially afraid of or against witchcraft etc back in the 90s (and we get to go on some 90s rides, my fellow ‘older’ millennials…although a lot of it is pretty dark) and then from a variety of groups in response to her infamous trans tweets. However you feel about the tweets, I think you’ll find the show really compelling.
Then, on IG, I saw a post from Dr. Cornel West about an interview he did with Russell Brand called “Neoliberalism is Dying.” It had only been posted a few minutes before and already there were loads of comments about how dare he speak with the “devil”, with the anti-vaxxer, with a “right wing lunatic.” And maybe it was warranted; as Guardian writer George Monbiot says: “I once admired [] Brand,” but now he perpetuates “conspiracy theories” and uses dangerous strategies like “scapegoat[ing].”
Luckily, nobody seemed to be cancelling Dr. West, publicly at least, but they expressed disappointment in him. There was no way any of these people could have watched the video in those few minutes! And…the video, I thought, was actually super interesting and empathetic and…nuanced. The part about “wounded healers” vs. “wounded hurters” and their impact on society was especially poignant. It doesn’t mean I agreed with everything, but I found it thought provoking.
Nuance! We see so much black and white, this side or that side, kind of talk and media.
And is it the quick reactions, the ‘my way or the highway’ stuff that creates witch hunts? Are some witch hunts warranted? Should you listen to a ‘witch’? [I mean anyone - or news organization or political party - you feel you’ve done your research and decided you don’t like what they stand for…should you listen to what they have to say?]
Often I think: the internet has ruined us. We’re totally doomed. But then, hasn’t it always been like this? I used to teach Arthur Miller’s The Crucible about the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 alongside several texts concerning the McCarthy Era (Good Night and Good Luck, for example) as well as post-9/11 terrorist ‘witch hunts.’ These were all well before social media. Weren’t the various witch hunts over centuries types of extreme polarization? Is it just that the polarization is now more visible? That there are billions more people on earth who can quickly funnel around something?
So essentially, to what extent should we ignore opinions we disagree with? Should we engage with people who are known to have opposing views or make false claims? Should we listen to opposing media or subscribe to newsletters from “the other side”? Can we engage with multiple views in a single piece of writing/video/conversation? (I wrote a piece called “Be Your Own Devil’s Advocate” that speaks to such idea.)
I’m not making a coherent point or statement, because I want to hear what you think. Maybe you have answers, hope, further questions, examples, articles to read. Anything goes. Please just consider we probably/hopefully have a lot of different views and perspectives in the audience. That doesn’t mean we should self-censor, but we can show care in the way we may argue a point even with a silent reader in mind.
Thanks even just for thinking about these questions. That alone is bound to help. Little ripples. Sorry, this is a super long discussion thread prompt! Hope your weekend is starting well!
On the one hand I think about the golden rule and treating people with kindness and dignity no matter their beliefs. We’ve lost the ability to see the person and their humanity.
On the other, I avoid the man in town with the tattoo of a swastika on his arm and flags in his yard because I have no interest in hearing his views or need to talk to him.
Nuanced and facilitated conversations between stakeholders in an issue are woefully missing from a lot of political dialogue. But there are some bright spots. The House has a bipartisan committee on how to make Congress better that has lasted because they hired a facilitator after Jan 6 to help them rebuild their relationships with each other and it worked. One of their recommendations to Congress was more common places to meet and mingle and have lunch together (which you think exist but really don’t). I like that idea a lot.
I like building ways for us all to see each other’s humanity. But I won’t deliberately listen to podcasts or polarizing commentators from “the other side” to get to that. Life is too short. That’s not a requirement of being a good person. I’d rather listen to a friend or have coffee with a family member who I know disagrees with me and love them anyway.
Mar 25, 2023·edited Mar 25, 2023Liked by Dr. Kathleen Waller
I always listen to both sides, but whether or not I enter a debate or discussion really depends on whether there's a common basis as a starting point.
For example, if someone is driven by emotion to the extent that they cannot engage rationally, I don't see the point. For example, I recently watched a video in which students walked out of a talk, stating that the speaker was a Nazi. Her crime: saying that men and women are biologically different.
I also can't be bothered to engage with people who express strident views about things they have little knowledge or experience of. For example, to read the letters page of newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone is an expert in how to run a country during an unknown pandemic. (there is a word for such people: ultracrepidarians: see https://open.substack.com/pub/terryfreedman/p/beware-the-ultracrepidarians?r=18suih&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Interesting. I was thinking about writing an article on my own small brushes with cancel culture. It's only a matter of time before we all get cancelled, unless the whole phenomenon implodes before then.
Great post, Kate. This is so timely, and something I think a lot about. I get that people have different points of view, but the ONLY way we can all move forward is to talk with each other with decency and respect. My old Pa who died last year had very different political views to me, but he always made me see a different perspective on an issue because we listened carefully to each other, and we respected the fact we could both bring something. I miss his thoughtful conversation. I don't think there's enough conversation between opposing sides any more, and the internet makes it anonymous and easy to grandstand. Here's another recommendation from me: BBC Radio 4's Encounters programme brings people with opposing views together in a mediated discussion on particular issues. By the end you see the guests moving towards each other, even if just to recognise the small things that they have in common: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jmx6p
Thank you for sharing the impact of this topic in your relationships with your "Pa" and your mother. It sounds like these perspectives brought you and your dad closer and maybe shaped the way you see these narratives in society. I'll certainly check out the Encounters prgoramme. Looks like it's just getting started with a few great topics. Despite the BBC's recent shortcomings (!!) they also do something like this on the Laura Kuenssberg show although Politics Joe discusses not being able to say everything he wants. Anyway, I've been watching her a bit recently and really interested in the discussion...although they don't get to the kinds of changes you discuss. I think the one-to-one intensity might help people get further.
So many great texts to check out from this thread. I am so so pleased that a lot of people, including yourself, felt comfortable sharing their views about this difficult topic here. I've learned from responses already and really intrigued by the careful reflections from different angles here.
In the 1950's philosopher Michael Oakeshott said it was more important for a society to move together than for it to move quickly. In his 1970 book RULES FOR RADICALS, Saul Alinsky advised community organizers to "Polarize everything..... No one will be moved to action if they believe there is 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other side. An organizer needs to make people believe the angels are 100% on our side, and the other side is made up 100% of devils." So Saul influenced a generation of activists to "polarize everything". It became a politically successful strategy that spread from politics into academics. Academic debating seeks to listen to and learn about the other side. Political debating seeks to vilify the other side, and shut it down. Academia in the social sciences embraced political debating .... and it replaced academic debating. Saul's advice led to political success for one side .... while sacrificing as though it was worthless...... the social fabric of listening to all sides. Saul himself admitted in his book that most issues were 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other. He urged activists to invent cancel culture and "polarize everything" as though our disagreements are 100-0 good on one side, and evil on the other.
Wow, I didn't know about Oakeshott at all. At quick glance alongside your comments, I would like to read more. Any recommendation on what to start with?
I read the Oakeshott biography by Professor Paul Franco. But if you are short of time in this phase of life, you can get a lot out of selected quotes: at a site like this:
My brother and I seem to have wandered to opposing political positions, but we try to stay in conversation with each other by sending each other stuff we find persuasive or interesting. It’s been great for our relationship in that we both remain vulnerable to the legitimacy of the other’s opinion ... and that vulnerability keeps us from being oppositional. Isaac Saul’s newsletter Tangle https://www.readtangle.com/ has been a great tool for us to resist polarization.
I've just signed up for the newsletter; looks great.
So great that you and your brother are talking about this. I think we often discuss the intergenerational family differences more often. Of course, friends and family of all kinds might have different views. It's too easy to cut off those conversations...thanks for sharing your experience.
Thanks for this post! I feel like I’m reticent to listen to both sides around things like anti-trans rhetoric (like that JKR spouts), especially now in the US with very real, harmful, and violent actions towards trans kids and adults being put into law using the same language and rhetoric she circulates. In cases like that, I don’t care to give people like JKR the benefit of a “both sides” argument. It’s interesting to think about how people may have “cancelled” her for witchcraft stuff a while ago, but for me now, it’s not so much “canceling” her or ideologically disagreeing with her: I’m putting a foot down and saying that anti trans hate isn’t acceptable. It can be hard for me to talk about this because I get so fired up (I love many trans people in my life), so I’m not interested in debating, but did want to share! Thanks!
Thanks for this recommendation from Marsha Gessen. The ways celebrities' anti-trans rhetoric circulates like wildfire is just heartbreaking. This stuff is wound so tightly to my values as a member of the LGBTQ+ community that having the one-on-one conversations with folks who don't share my experience/opinion often triggers anger/fear. And witnessing people I value/trust (even in a psycho-social kind of way with a celebrity, writer, musician, etc.) share views that differ so greatly from my own can be such a mindf*ck! There's a big discussion in queer/gamer circles on whether it's ethical to play the new JKR HP video game (there's some fishy stuff happening in it with a transwoman character who is implied to be a "man" via her name). Lots of people are boycotting, but a lot of people are saying "it's just a game. It's definitely complicated--so many opinions, all over the world! I can only speak from my own lived experience, though. <3 Thanks for this space to share my thoughts as a comment!
Well said, Kate! This is an issue close to my heart also, and getting to see the repercussions of the constant rhetoric against the trans community online can be heartbreaking when it affects someone close. I must admit to finding it difficult to appreciate other views on such a sensitive and close issue.
Hi Kate! Thank you for this! <3 Yes, it is really difficult for me to appreciate other views when I feel like "Wait! People are dying! People are losing their rights! This is not a matter of preference or an intellectual activity!" It makes me think of that Brené Brown book (I can't remember which one) where she talks about being patient and open to listening to folks whose views are different from ours. I remember reading it and thinking "Damn, good for you! Maybe one day, but I'm not there yet!"
Brilliant thinking and an outstanding piece of writing, Kathleen. The problem is rarely our different views, but a person's contentious nature and how they communicate and conduct themselves as a result of it.
For sure listen to both and all sides. Otherwise how can one be informed? Not sure why suddenly people are so ready to support or censure based on knee-jerk reactions to key words without looking into the nuance of any issue. The US is getting a reputation for constant "psychodrama" -- at root it's the wholesale rejection of information, frankly, and unfortunately it's very much going to affect out future.
Impossible to express the turmoil of feelings aroused. Sufficeth to say that at my ‘senior’ age I battle with more extreme feelings of love and rage for and against many changing attitudes and behaviours that I am struck dumb. All of this has a thread of cynicism woven throughout and for my own sanity I tend to retreat to the garden.
I think that civilized debate is the only way to achieve a civilized society, and unfortunately we don't see it very often. When watching a debate it is always the calm, reasoned speaker who gets my attention. If someone refuses to engage in rational debate I conclude that they have no argument, but I am always prepared to listen to those who can engage sensitively, respectful of the needs of others, to try to work towards a mutually acceptable end point. As a rule, I would rather hear all views, even if I find them abhorrent, as censorship can allow them to fester in dark places without being challenged. Great article, and brave.
Completely agree with you, Jules. I also think your point about emotion and debate is an important one. I think emotions can also give us knowledge about ourselves or others at times, but in these situations, one who attacks or interrupts too much doesn't seem confident in their own stance (as you say). Well said and thanks so much for reading as well as your comments here!
Interesting discussion, Kate. I am sitting on the sidelines and reading through the many thought-provoking comments.
I am fascinated by the whole cancel culture ethos, though I don't indulge in any social media, as I find it frustrating and time-consuming. I listened to a wonderful conversation on 'Over the Rainbow' podcast a while ago https://open.spotify.com/show/3rJjUGdCL3HScbt18xYVYl
where a guest pointed out that simply cancelling those who were espousing confused ideas (in this case about members of the LGBTQ+ community) without engaging in conversation to encourage better understanding, was a lost opportunity. I have found myself 'educating' colleagues recently on similar issues, and have found that people are often genuinely keen to understand more. I just don't think that the online world is always the best place to engage, and sometimes it is just easier for one's own mental health to close down (cancel) such voices. In other words, I can appreciate that others have a totally different opinion to myself in theory, but I don't necessarily want to engage with them!
I think you bring up a really good point about spaces for discussion. Obviously, there's a ton online, including this thread -- and I'm really happy that people have been able to express so many ideas on here for us to think about further. Of course the classroom can be a great space, one that is built on trust and respect can go really far in considering different opinions and pushing further by looking at texts, research, etc. I often use this 'Take a Stand' activity where students are met with a provocative statement then stand near a sign "strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree" and then argue their point with the ability to move if they feel swayed by someone else. Anyway, lots you can do in a classroom. And it sounds like your workplace is at least engaging somewhat, which is great. I see this in French cafes -- "arguments" by other standards are the cultural form of debates; sometimes I get involved if it moves past the table. I really love that about the French. I see it sometimes in British pubs, too. But maybe with the addition of the pandemic's impact, we are moving more and more online for these conversations. There's more available online, but we all also know the danger of anonymity as well as funneling of information. Where can we go? Where does this active debate exist? And also -- do we want to? I agree, sometimes I really don't want to engage, like the Brené Brown quote that Kate mentioned here as well. Sometimes it's exhausting or I feel like I can predict the way a conversation will go. Sometimes I just want to be on my own!
I love that about the conversations/arguments in French cafe's! I like your classroom debates - especially that students can choose to move if they feel swayed by others. As you say, the danger of anonymity online can be an issue, whereas nothing beats an in-person conversation.
Thanks for the link to Over the Rainbow Kate, I've followed and will dive in tomorrow. As a gay woman I have spent most of my adult life battling with homophobia from my mother. It has taken a long time for her to come to terms with what she (and many others) call my 'lifestyle'. But because she's my mum and I know that she loves me, I have kept going. I can't say that she is a flag-flying ally to the LGBTQ+ community now but she has shifted over time. What really interests me is where her thoughts, beliefs and feelings about this subject come from. They are deep-rooted but I've come to understand how her upbringing, her lived experience and her personality have combined into her views. Even though it has been very hard to endure personally at times, keeping on going with her has taught me a lot. I do think there's value in engaging with the 'other side' because it's the only way to resolve painful and damaging conflict. The JK Rowling podcast is really interesting not only because it provides different perspectives but also the narrator Meghan Phelps-Roper talks about her own journey out of extreme religious bigotry to a more questioning position through the engagement of patient moderate people. Not everyone can do that, or is willing to, and that's fine. It's a real skill. I pick my battles, and shelve others. What I really like about Phelps-Roper is that she questions whether she is right ALL the time, and I think that is a healthy approach. As the amazing South African artist William Kentridge says, 'Uncertainty is essential, it's how we make sense of the world'. I wrote a Substack post about it a few months back: https://www.thegallerycompanion.com/p/uncertainty-is-essential-its-how
Thank you Victoria, you raise some interesting and thought-provoking ideas here. I am sorry you have had that experience with your mother, and think that it is commendable that you have been able to look at her attitudes towards you in the wider context of her upbringing, etc.
I genuinely don't believe that people can listen to Russell Brand speak about any topic at length and not at least get the impression that HE believes he's being compassionate and reasonable. And tbh (he often is.)
The problem that I often see vocalized (in secret amongst other left-wing people) is that it's very difficult for them to acquiesce, even to someone like Brand, because some of his opinions are then either spun or manipulated by someone else they disagree with more (or outright hate).
People don't want to live in the confused, gray, mostly liberal world of someone like Brand. They want to live in a more categorizable, group-friendly, and less needing of research version of liberalism. It's the same lazy white liberal attitude that MLK and Malcolm X talked about.
If you took Brand's more "controversial" opinions, it would be white middle class liberals screaming at him, not poor kids or minorities—they'd probably agree with him.
This is an interesting point as well that 'liberal' (or conservative) issues for different groups of people or perspectives can change greatly. Just shows even more how nuanced things can/should be.
Re Brand, really appreciate your views. I think it's much easier (as some have said here) to label one way or the other.
Thank you, David. You put your finger on the secret few have noticed: classical liberalism exists because of the extensive research of the highly educated, but after 2008 a new brand of liberal appeared that was utterly uninformed in unison to the point of blind faith in govt. That's never a good start. Remember, as with a bird, the left and right wings always work together, whether they know it or not. If you look at the issues of disagreement, there's a willingness on the left to look away from reality to withdraw into "more categorizable, group-friendly" narratives, exactly as you say, ignoring the lived reality of our fellow human beings. And conservatives err in the opposite direction, throwing babies out with the bathwater. People prefer to support or censure, entirely missing the point, Alinsky, rather than end the real harm certain narratives sanction under the radar. (Humans are all different with different life paths and purposes, as are the generations, so positive progress requires great knowledge, patience, wisdom, understanding.) The real question is who is setting the agenda for the new lazy liberal, and for what purpose? https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids
I'm not sure if people quite understand that having a window into someone's mind (a la social media or commentary) is great...but also offers limitless chances to disagree or even fight.
We have to find people we agree with on the top 10 things and just work together on those. I can find other people I agree with on other things in smaller interest group gatherings.
Thanks for linking back to this Kate. I too found The Witch Trials utterly fascinating. I will always keep my mind open and at the very least consider all sides to an argument.
I generally try and be open to listening to other viewpoints other than my own and to try and remind myself that even people who I really disagree with have come to their views for many reasons, like me.
But I'm not always good at it! Sometimes I just find something too much or I shut down. I do think there's a line too - holding different views on how to run an economy is one thing, holding views that devalues a person's entire existence is another, and I don't think that should be treated with the same respect.
On the one hand I think about the golden rule and treating people with kindness and dignity no matter their beliefs. We’ve lost the ability to see the person and their humanity.
On the other, I avoid the man in town with the tattoo of a swastika on his arm and flags in his yard because I have no interest in hearing his views or need to talk to him.
Nuanced and facilitated conversations between stakeholders in an issue are woefully missing from a lot of political dialogue. But there are some bright spots. The House has a bipartisan committee on how to make Congress better that has lasted because they hired a facilitator after Jan 6 to help them rebuild their relationships with each other and it worked. One of their recommendations to Congress was more common places to meet and mingle and have lunch together (which you think exist but really don’t). I like that idea a lot.
I like building ways for us all to see each other’s humanity. But I won’t deliberately listen to podcasts or polarizing commentators from “the other side” to get to that. Life is too short. That’s not a requirement of being a good person. I’d rather listen to a friend or have coffee with a family member who I know disagrees with me and love them anyway.
Nice American political example. Also, really important message to consider how we use the little time we have here.
A reader replied by email with some thoughts related to this podcast -- The Minefield
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3EBB3Oiiyly5WxRLa2ogZd?si=n2HUUKpqR1OBIMrvghBnNg
Will listen this week
I always listen to both sides, but whether or not I enter a debate or discussion really depends on whether there's a common basis as a starting point.
For example, if someone is driven by emotion to the extent that they cannot engage rationally, I don't see the point. For example, I recently watched a video in which students walked out of a talk, stating that the speaker was a Nazi. Her crime: saying that men and women are biologically different.
I also can't be bothered to engage with people who express strident views about things they have little knowledge or experience of. For example, to read the letters page of newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking that almost everyone is an expert in how to run a country during an unknown pandemic. (there is a word for such people: ultracrepidarians: see https://open.substack.com/pub/terryfreedman/p/beware-the-ultracrepidarians?r=18suih&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
Interesting. I was thinking about writing an article on my own small brushes with cancel culture. It's only a matter of time before we all get cancelled, unless the whole phenomenon implodes before then.
Thanks for your thoughts, Terry. It would be interesting to read that article you want to write
Great post, Kate. This is so timely, and something I think a lot about. I get that people have different points of view, but the ONLY way we can all move forward is to talk with each other with decency and respect. My old Pa who died last year had very different political views to me, but he always made me see a different perspective on an issue because we listened carefully to each other, and we respected the fact we could both bring something. I miss his thoughtful conversation. I don't think there's enough conversation between opposing sides any more, and the internet makes it anonymous and easy to grandstand. Here's another recommendation from me: BBC Radio 4's Encounters programme brings people with opposing views together in a mediated discussion on particular issues. By the end you see the guests moving towards each other, even if just to recognise the small things that they have in common: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09jmx6p
Thank you for sharing the impact of this topic in your relationships with your "Pa" and your mother. It sounds like these perspectives brought you and your dad closer and maybe shaped the way you see these narratives in society. I'll certainly check out the Encounters prgoramme. Looks like it's just getting started with a few great topics. Despite the BBC's recent shortcomings (!!) they also do something like this on the Laura Kuenssberg show although Politics Joe discusses not being able to say everything he wants. Anyway, I've been watching her a bit recently and really interested in the discussion...although they don't get to the kinds of changes you discuss. I think the one-to-one intensity might help people get further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkYulUvfCo
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65001267
So many great texts to check out from this thread. I am so so pleased that a lot of people, including yourself, felt comfortable sharing their views about this difficult topic here. I've learned from responses already and really intrigued by the careful reflections from different angles here.
In the 1950's philosopher Michael Oakeshott said it was more important for a society to move together than for it to move quickly. In his 1970 book RULES FOR RADICALS, Saul Alinsky advised community organizers to "Polarize everything..... No one will be moved to action if they believe there is 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other side. An organizer needs to make people believe the angels are 100% on our side, and the other side is made up 100% of devils." So Saul influenced a generation of activists to "polarize everything". It became a politically successful strategy that spread from politics into academics. Academic debating seeks to listen to and learn about the other side. Political debating seeks to vilify the other side, and shut it down. Academia in the social sciences embraced political debating .... and it replaced academic debating. Saul's advice led to political success for one side .... while sacrificing as though it was worthless...... the social fabric of listening to all sides. Saul himself admitted in his book that most issues were 52% good on one side, and 48% good on the other. He urged activists to invent cancel culture and "polarize everything" as though our disagreements are 100-0 good on one side, and evil on the other.
Wow, I didn't know about Oakeshott at all. At quick glance alongside your comments, I would like to read more. Any recommendation on what to start with?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/oakeshott/
I read the Oakeshott biography by Professor Paul Franco. But if you are short of time in this phase of life, you can get a lot out of selected quotes: at a site like this:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/65231.Michael_Oakeshott
And an essay on the tug-of-war between political debating and academic debating:
https://www.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/articles/peter-slovenski-mutual-respect
Looks great.
And I was thinking about this article! Thanks for linking it.
INTERESTING Peter, thanks for sharing the info on Oakeshott, I didn't know about it. Will take a look at proper look at these links this week.
My brother and I seem to have wandered to opposing political positions, but we try to stay in conversation with each other by sending each other stuff we find persuasive or interesting. It’s been great for our relationship in that we both remain vulnerable to the legitimacy of the other’s opinion ... and that vulnerability keeps us from being oppositional. Isaac Saul’s newsletter Tangle https://www.readtangle.com/ has been a great tool for us to resist polarization.
I've just signed up for the newsletter; looks great.
So great that you and your brother are talking about this. I think we often discuss the intergenerational family differences more often. Of course, friends and family of all kinds might have different views. It's too easy to cut off those conversations...thanks for sharing your experience.
I bet you’ll really enjoy it. He really provides a nice angle on the news--I find it very settling.
I read Allsides for unbiased news. https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
It shows where the bias is in an obvious way.
Looks like a great resource!
Thanks for this post! I feel like I’m reticent to listen to both sides around things like anti-trans rhetoric (like that JKR spouts), especially now in the US with very real, harmful, and violent actions towards trans kids and adults being put into law using the same language and rhetoric she circulates. In cases like that, I don’t care to give people like JKR the benefit of a “both sides” argument. It’s interesting to think about how people may have “cancelled” her for witchcraft stuff a while ago, but for me now, it’s not so much “canceling” her or ideologically disagreeing with her: I’m putting a foot down and saying that anti trans hate isn’t acceptable. It can be hard for me to talk about this because I get so fired up (I love many trans people in my life), so I’m not interested in debating, but did want to share! Thanks!
Thank YOU. You also bring a really important perspective about personal pain / hurt which I think Masha Gessen talks about in regards to Dave Chapelle (they like Chapelle but then understood how his comments hurt people even if that was not the intention) https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/masha-gessen-on-the-battle-over-trans-rights
Thanks for this recommendation from Marsha Gessen. The ways celebrities' anti-trans rhetoric circulates like wildfire is just heartbreaking. This stuff is wound so tightly to my values as a member of the LGBTQ+ community that having the one-on-one conversations with folks who don't share my experience/opinion often triggers anger/fear. And witnessing people I value/trust (even in a psycho-social kind of way with a celebrity, writer, musician, etc.) share views that differ so greatly from my own can be such a mindf*ck! There's a big discussion in queer/gamer circles on whether it's ethical to play the new JKR HP video game (there's some fishy stuff happening in it with a transwoman character who is implied to be a "man" via her name). Lots of people are boycotting, but a lot of people are saying "it's just a game. It's definitely complicated--so many opinions, all over the world! I can only speak from my own lived experience, though. <3 Thanks for this space to share my thoughts as a comment!
Well said, Kate! This is an issue close to my heart also, and getting to see the repercussions of the constant rhetoric against the trans community online can be heartbreaking when it affects someone close. I must admit to finding it difficult to appreciate other views on such a sensitive and close issue.
Hi Kate! Thank you for this! <3 Yes, it is really difficult for me to appreciate other views when I feel like "Wait! People are dying! People are losing their rights! This is not a matter of preference or an intellectual activity!" It makes me think of that Brené Brown book (I can't remember which one) where she talks about being patient and open to listening to folks whose views are different from ours. I remember reading it and thinking "Damn, good for you! Maybe one day, but I'm not there yet!"
Brené often really gets it. Like this quote.
Yes! I know what you mean; I think it's easy and all very well to 'be patient' if you are not dealing with the emotional fall-out of an issue.
Brilliant thinking and an outstanding piece of writing, Kathleen. The problem is rarely our different views, but a person's contentious nature and how they communicate and conduct themselves as a result of it.
For sure listen to both and all sides. Otherwise how can one be informed? Not sure why suddenly people are so ready to support or censure based on knee-jerk reactions to key words without looking into the nuance of any issue. The US is getting a reputation for constant "psychodrama" -- at root it's the wholesale rejection of information, frankly, and unfortunately it's very much going to affect out future.
Impossible to express the turmoil of feelings aroused. Sufficeth to say that at my ‘senior’ age I battle with more extreme feelings of love and rage for and against many changing attitudes and behaviours that I am struck dumb. All of this has a thread of cynicism woven throughout and for my own sanity I tend to retreat to the garden.
I think that civilized debate is the only way to achieve a civilized society, and unfortunately we don't see it very often. When watching a debate it is always the calm, reasoned speaker who gets my attention. If someone refuses to engage in rational debate I conclude that they have no argument, but I am always prepared to listen to those who can engage sensitively, respectful of the needs of others, to try to work towards a mutually acceptable end point. As a rule, I would rather hear all views, even if I find them abhorrent, as censorship can allow them to fester in dark places without being challenged. Great article, and brave.
Completely agree with you, Jules. I also think your point about emotion and debate is an important one. I think emotions can also give us knowledge about ourselves or others at times, but in these situations, one who attacks or interrupts too much doesn't seem confident in their own stance (as you say). Well said and thanks so much for reading as well as your comments here!
I agree! Censorship is too awful for words.
Interesting discussion, Kate. I am sitting on the sidelines and reading through the many thought-provoking comments.
I am fascinated by the whole cancel culture ethos, though I don't indulge in any social media, as I find it frustrating and time-consuming. I listened to a wonderful conversation on 'Over the Rainbow' podcast a while ago https://open.spotify.com/show/3rJjUGdCL3HScbt18xYVYl
where a guest pointed out that simply cancelling those who were espousing confused ideas (in this case about members of the LGBTQ+ community) without engaging in conversation to encourage better understanding, was a lost opportunity. I have found myself 'educating' colleagues recently on similar issues, and have found that people are often genuinely keen to understand more. I just don't think that the online world is always the best place to engage, and sometimes it is just easier for one's own mental health to close down (cancel) such voices. In other words, I can appreciate that others have a totally different opinion to myself in theory, but I don't necessarily want to engage with them!
Looks like another good podcast rec - following.
I think you bring up a really good point about spaces for discussion. Obviously, there's a ton online, including this thread -- and I'm really happy that people have been able to express so many ideas on here for us to think about further. Of course the classroom can be a great space, one that is built on trust and respect can go really far in considering different opinions and pushing further by looking at texts, research, etc. I often use this 'Take a Stand' activity where students are met with a provocative statement then stand near a sign "strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree" and then argue their point with the ability to move if they feel swayed by someone else. Anyway, lots you can do in a classroom. And it sounds like your workplace is at least engaging somewhat, which is great. I see this in French cafes -- "arguments" by other standards are the cultural form of debates; sometimes I get involved if it moves past the table. I really love that about the French. I see it sometimes in British pubs, too. But maybe with the addition of the pandemic's impact, we are moving more and more online for these conversations. There's more available online, but we all also know the danger of anonymity as well as funneling of information. Where can we go? Where does this active debate exist? And also -- do we want to? I agree, sometimes I really don't want to engage, like the Brené Brown quote that Kate mentioned here as well. Sometimes it's exhausting or I feel like I can predict the way a conversation will go. Sometimes I just want to be on my own!
I love that about the conversations/arguments in French cafe's! I like your classroom debates - especially that students can choose to move if they feel swayed by others. As you say, the danger of anonymity online can be an issue, whereas nothing beats an in-person conversation.
Thanks for the link to Over the Rainbow Kate, I've followed and will dive in tomorrow. As a gay woman I have spent most of my adult life battling with homophobia from my mother. It has taken a long time for her to come to terms with what she (and many others) call my 'lifestyle'. But because she's my mum and I know that she loves me, I have kept going. I can't say that she is a flag-flying ally to the LGBTQ+ community now but she has shifted over time. What really interests me is where her thoughts, beliefs and feelings about this subject come from. They are deep-rooted but I've come to understand how her upbringing, her lived experience and her personality have combined into her views. Even though it has been very hard to endure personally at times, keeping on going with her has taught me a lot. I do think there's value in engaging with the 'other side' because it's the only way to resolve painful and damaging conflict. The JK Rowling podcast is really interesting not only because it provides different perspectives but also the narrator Meghan Phelps-Roper talks about her own journey out of extreme religious bigotry to a more questioning position through the engagement of patient moderate people. Not everyone can do that, or is willing to, and that's fine. It's a real skill. I pick my battles, and shelve others. What I really like about Phelps-Roper is that she questions whether she is right ALL the time, and I think that is a healthy approach. As the amazing South African artist William Kentridge says, 'Uncertainty is essential, it's how we make sense of the world'. I wrote a Substack post about it a few months back: https://www.thegallerycompanion.com/p/uncertainty-is-essential-its-how
Thank you Victoria, you raise some interesting and thought-provoking ideas here. I am sorry you have had that experience with your mother, and think that it is commendable that you have been able to look at her attitudes towards you in the wider context of her upbringing, etc.
I genuinely don't believe that people can listen to Russell Brand speak about any topic at length and not at least get the impression that HE believes he's being compassionate and reasonable. And tbh (he often is.)
The problem that I often see vocalized (in secret amongst other left-wing people) is that it's very difficult for them to acquiesce, even to someone like Brand, because some of his opinions are then either spun or manipulated by someone else they disagree with more (or outright hate).
People don't want to live in the confused, gray, mostly liberal world of someone like Brand. They want to live in a more categorizable, group-friendly, and less needing of research version of liberalism. It's the same lazy white liberal attitude that MLK and Malcolm X talked about.
If you took Brand's more "controversial" opinions, it would be white middle class liberals screaming at him, not poor kids or minorities—they'd probably agree with him.
This is an interesting point as well that 'liberal' (or conservative) issues for different groups of people or perspectives can change greatly. Just shows even more how nuanced things can/should be.
Re Brand, really appreciate your views. I think it's much easier (as some have said here) to label one way or the other.
Thank you, David. You put your finger on the secret few have noticed: classical liberalism exists because of the extensive research of the highly educated, but after 2008 a new brand of liberal appeared that was utterly uninformed in unison to the point of blind faith in govt. That's never a good start. Remember, as with a bird, the left and right wings always work together, whether they know it or not. If you look at the issues of disagreement, there's a willingness on the left to look away from reality to withdraw into "more categorizable, group-friendly" narratives, exactly as you say, ignoring the lived reality of our fellow human beings. And conservatives err in the opposite direction, throwing babies out with the bathwater. People prefer to support or censure, entirely missing the point, Alinsky, rather than end the real harm certain narratives sanction under the radar. (Humans are all different with different life paths and purposes, as are the generations, so positive progress requires great knowledge, patience, wisdom, understanding.) The real question is who is setting the agenda for the new lazy liberal, and for what purpose? https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids
I'm not sure if people quite understand that having a window into someone's mind (a la social media or commentary) is great...but also offers limitless chances to disagree or even fight.
We have to find people we agree with on the top 10 things and just work together on those. I can find other people I agree with on other things in smaller interest group gatherings.
Your HRC observation is hilarious.
Yes, totally.
- Someone who took the vaxx and disagrees with RB on a few things...but still, he's right a lot, lol.
Thanks for linking back to this Kate. I too found The Witch Trials utterly fascinating. I will always keep my mind open and at the very least consider all sides to an argument.
Thanks for checking this out from the link, Nathan. Agree, try to be this way. It’s not always easy though!
This is tricky! Thanks for writing this Kate.
I generally try and be open to listening to other viewpoints other than my own and to try and remind myself that even people who I really disagree with have come to their views for many reasons, like me.
But I'm not always good at it! Sometimes I just find something too much or I shut down. I do think there's a line too - holding different views on how to run an economy is one thing, holding views that devalues a person's entire existence is another, and I don't think that should be treated with the same respect.
Infamous comments of Jk Rowling? How can any rational adult really believe that?