One of the most outstanding social phenomena of our time is polarization and, as in everything, the causes are multiple; Although there are some that stand out: the general distrust in institutions, because not only is the probity of government or ecclesiastical institutions doubted, but also educational institutions and even the family as the way to spend the rest of one’s life. Distrust could also be contributed to by the exuberant appearance of points of view whose reach does not depend on any criterion except that of popularity and which, being so many and varied, become indistinguishable in the spectrum of information. Another factor, which undoubtedly acts decisively, is the use of certain algorithms on internet platforms that lock us all in an echo chamber: each user only finds what is similar to what they have previously searched for and not only in terms of subject matter, but also in ideological bias.
Authority, not the authority of the power that governs, but that authority that was earned by having dedicated one’s life to study in a field of knowledge and by having achieved, thanks to countless experiences, a documented and considered opinion, is in crisis. What was called wisdom is lost like a needle in the haystack of the opinions that have the most followers. “In the market everyone is equal,” said Nietzsche in his Zarathustra and today we all live in the market. That market, however, is not democracy, but real democracy, that is, corruption in democracy, and here we return to the first cause mentioned: distrust in institutions: dedicating one’s life to a field of knowledge materializes in titles, titles issued by “institutions” and that do not necessarily accredit anything, or in official awards and recognitions that do not guarantee anything either.
The lack of authority in the aforementioned sense, added to the variety of points of view reinforced with technological paraphernalia that increases its persuasive power, plus the relentless repetition of the same, of that “more of the same” in which the algorithms lock us, have ended up polarizing us: we only admit what we believe and since there are no nuances, considerations, but rather noisy and colorful controversies, the point of view itself, to which one clings, becomes more recalcitrant.
Surely there are many more reasons for the current polarization to occur; But perhaps it is more interesting to analyze its consequences: what characterizes a polarized person is that he closes himself in and only allows access to what confirms what he is: what is different is the enemy. The severity of being polarized will be easily understood if we remember what human history and our personal growth have been like. If one compares what human beings were like at the beginning, what they had, what their heritage was… with what we now are and have; or if one compares what we were at birth with what we are now, an obligatory question arises: how was it possible to reach, as humanity and as individuals, what we are and possess today? If everyone had closed themselves off without accepting what other individuals offered them, obviously, we would still be in the cave era and as wild and feral as when we were born.
This analysis, which borders on the excessively didactic, shows a very clear truth: we are the result of what others have given us and we have taken. Others are essential to build us and, more strictly: not others equal to us, but those truly other, those different from us, because, just as a community stagnates when it repeats the same thing, the same happens to those who surround themselves only with those who give them their side and tell them what they want to hear. And therefore, a polarized person is a stagnant individual.
Why is one closed to the other? The history of the Middle Ages offers us the answer: once a solution has been found for a problem, that solution is repeated and becomes The Solution and The Truth, in addition to uniting us and giving us security. The other is what we do not want to hear, what is rejected because it puts our security, our identity at risk. Dialogue, unlike the chorus, is that state in which one opens up to the other, is prepared to consider the other, the different. Therefore, the disappearance of dialogue is a serious consequence of polarization, the other is stagnation. History slows down, one’s enrichment stops, the truth one subscribes to becomes dogma and one without realizing it becomes fanatical.
Lately there has been a lot of talk about critical thinking, about the need to encourage and disseminate it, and – as I understand it – this critical thinking begins when the ability to doubt is acquired, but doubt does not arise if one does not face the other, faces the different, measures oneself against the discordant, that is, if one precisely resists hearing what one does not want to hear. And today there is an overprotective behavior that seeks to keep us safe, to prevent us from encountering the uncomfortable. I am referring to the politically correct fashion that supports, precisely, the attitude of not wanting to hear what one does not like. And not only does he not want to hear it, but he prohibits it, persecutes it and cancels it so that no one hears it. Before, it was the State that prohibited hearing certain things; Today, it is society that demands that the State prohibit them. The other, the dissident, the subversive, the immoral, the revolutionary, the iconoclastic, the uncomfortable, the heretical, the rebellious, the incendiary, the crazy… in a word: the different, seeks to be extirpated – and as in the most vicious dictatorships – not only does it seek to banish it from the present, but from the past: today books are expelled from libraries.
Polarization is undoubtedly a social evil and today this evil, which is closed-mindedness, is complemented by an attempt to close what is different, with the fashion of political correctness, which is the other side of that evil. The solution surely lies in developing critical thinking, but how can we acquire it if we want to enter a world where only what pleases us exists? How can we acquire one’s own criteria—which is ultimately the meaning of critical thinking—if what causes cognitive dissonance in those who are susceptible is prohibited?
How I miss dialogue, true dialogue, which can be as heated as you want, as long as, of course, the participants listen to each other!