Alternative Editorial: How Can Democracy Capture Our Complexity?
What do we think about the present moment as we collectively move towards the holiday season? Are we oppressed by the level of conflict being played out in our public space - whether it surfaces as strikes, protests, war or wokeness? Or are we buoyed by the feel-good factor of World Cup football (even after our team might have been sent home) and looking forward to Christmas with our families?
If any one of you jumped up to answer the question on behalf of the part of the population you are embedded in, you're brave. To claim that you know what everyone is feeling takes a certain kind of chutzpah - not one that is universally admired. In a tweet last week, Guardian journalist John Harris claimed:
The Zeitgeist of Britain right now (and I suspect, most of the world) is a deep weariness. Absolutely everyone is knackered and full of dread. It's a big part of the mood of the strikes, rather than the "militancy" I keep reading about. This is a point much missed.
It goes without saying that this is not our perspective - every week we report on new energies arising in different parts of our socio-economic-political system. But on principle, we see that “there is always an alternative". Always another way of interrogating the present, particularly if you feel disempowered by the mainstream view.
To perceive alternatives is not a knee-jerk response, nor contrariness. But a learned way of listening carefully and checking what is being presented against what is true or possible at any given time. It generally requires getting some altitude on the problem - like a helicopter pulling back from the immediate incident and spotting what else is happening around the scene.
For some this might sound demanding and yes, to be attentive like this does require inner resilience arising out of some belief in our ability to judge. But unless we cultivate this capacity, we will continue to be manipulated by a mainstream media whose problems we have long articulated.
Three perspectives on racism
For example, three very different news agendas reflected the state of play of racism in British society this week. In Qatar, it was widely celebrated by the commentators and fan-sites that Morocco made history as the first African football team to reach the semi-finals in a World Cup. There was a sense that, as with South Korea in the group stages, football was becoming more diverse, even more egalitarian - and that this was welcomed by everyone.
Sharing the headlines is the controversy over Prince Harry and Meghan Merkel's documentary about their decision to step away from the Royal Family, somewhat driven by the evidence of racism in the royal household and wider society. But exacerbated by a media intent on polarising rather than embracing the issue. It was the Firm's unwillingness to explicitly protect and defend Meghan in the face of this hostility that the couple describe as their reason for walking away.
Harry cites his siblings as claiming all incoming spouses have had to face trial by media: but none, he responds, have had to deal with endemic racism in the attacks on her character. Despite the media's almost universal alarm at their documentary, aligning themselves with a perception that the wider public would not want to bring the Royal Family down, there is enough evidence that black people welcome their activism.
A third (older) item was around the universally derided behaviour of Lady Susan Hussey whose insistent, disrespectful questioning of Ngozi Fulani about where she 'really' came from very quickly led to her resignation from the Palace team. Heir to the throne Prince William, who had just embarked on an image defining trip to the US to herald the winners of his Moonshot prize for environmental innovation, confirmed "there is no place for racism at in our society".
However, the controversy rippled across the media to reveal very different responses to the incident - from those who welcomed the clarity and speed of the outcome, to those who rejected it entirely. Of the latter, some recommended a resolutely anti-woke (meaning racially aware) stance for the future. Others regretted that so many people of diverse heritage find themselves in a position of having to deny their ancestors in order to be able to be treated as equal in the UK. It calls to mind what retired MP Norman Tebbit called the 'cricket test': which side do English citizens of Indian heritage cheer for when the two countries meet?
So, it's complicated and continues to be so. And not surprising, given how little our distance from the more obvious racism of the 60s. But it’s not a mentality we should - or can - be at ease with. Given the entangled nature of social injustice and the climate crisis we are necessarily on a rapid curve of more deeply understanding and evolving ourselves. The stakes are high. Unless we move towards creating the conditions for an explicitly post-colonial equality across our global socio-political system, half the planet will suffer direct extreme consequences and the other half will collapse soon after.
Hijacking nuances
Much use has been made this week of the term virtue-signalling - a brutal acknowledgement of our ability to fool ourselves on complex issues. Saying what is deemed 'politically correct' (another misleading and crude phrase, hijacking nuance) whether or not we act accordingly, in order to look good. Yet isn't that unavoidable in an age of change? Do we not all align ourselves with 'virtue' well before we become fully capable of it?
Possibly - but we can also use that holding space as an excuse to hide what we don't want to address. In reality, we are all in a different relationship with what we hold, or is deemed, to be a 'good attitude'. Some for reasons of selfishness, others as a result of power, others relating to trauma or simply cultural construction - there's no end of explanations for who we are being from moment to moment. En route to recognising the true value of diversity out there, we are ourselves quite diverse in our inner capacities.
What might be missed in the cut-throat world of 'cancel culture', where a person is judged not just for their current stance but for those they held in the past, is that there is an audience for the virtue-signalling - a market, even. There’s advantage to be gained by welcoming everyone's intentions. Evidence has it, that corporations are very alive to the signals we give - however deeply held - and seek to serve those interests.
When environmentalism became fashionable, companies responded by making their products more climate friendly. Again - in many cases - this was superficial. Some practice 'greenwash', claiming to do much more than they print on their packaging. But in all these cases, there is an implicit understanding that they should go that route.
Advertising is a good measure of where public opinion is understood to be. J&P Morgan's advert about transsexuality; Apple's on disabled and differently abled people using Siri; John Lewis on a post-consumerist view of Christmas - all are (literally) banking on a sympathetic ear. The more that such narratives gain momentum, even if half of those carrying the message are less than fully committed, the more decision makers notice and adjust their own behaviour. After all, parties want votes and corporations want customers. This is soft power in action.
Advertising professionals might look smug, or maybe askance, when identified with clear trends: they might prefer to be trend setters. But the soft power mechanism has much wider implications than how to sell goods. China and the US both know how soft power - The American Dream v the China Dream - is the key to their future flourishing. Without the channels for attracting and then influencing others, they cannot guarantee their global status.
Hard power (guns and money) is not enough. The dark side of that certainty is that North Korea is 'scared of soft power' and regularly executes those who use social media to undermine government messaging.
A deeper democracy?
In that sense, the freedom to take a wide variety of stances, for an infinite number of reasons, becomes synonymous with a deeper idea of democracy. But while many nations hold that right constitutionally, which among us have built the infrastructure to make that diversity count? We live instead in a public space that constantly polarises us through the media, and only gives us a choice between two sides in an election. In the UK, with its first past the post system, this is especially poor with 71% of votes 'wasted'.
One way of beginning to unearth that anomaly, and then challenge it, is through the Anti Debate (first blogged here). Dubbed by Perspectiva's Director Jonathan Rowson as "a new form of inquiry worthy of the metacrisis" the Anti-Debate dissolves the idea that old style debating leads to the resolution of problems. It's just as likely to entrench and polarise views, with the dubious goal of having one side win over the other.
Instead, the Anti-Debate is a process of unlearning what we thought was agreed between us, moving into awareness of the many perspectives on an important issue, and being able to step back and observe the wider reality.
This is not, like a Citizens Assembly, a weighing up of the facts in order to make a best decision. More than that, it's a training to be able to be in society with a wider understanding of others, and the causes for their diversity. This may in turn, generate more empathy for what Rowson calls 'the impossible We'. But anti-debates might also grow the demand for an improved democracy - one that captures and provides agency to our complexity.
What on earth that could mean is difficult to say. At The Alternative Global we are pointing at the need for a parallel polis that takes on the job of bringing people together in new and meaningful - material, emotional, spiritual - ways. But others might point at the future of Artificial Intelligence. AI may be capable of the job of integrating the complexity of our conditions, to provide quick solutions to previously impregnable problems. For more on this, see Mo Gawdat noting both why this could be dangerous, but also how—if we play our part in generating the right data to educate the AI—it could lead to a golden age of human flourishing.
If you would like to join Perspectiva for an Anti-Debate in London on Thursday December 15th between 2 and 5pm, sign up here. When you do, you’ll see we’re using the pol.is sotfware as an entry point into the proposition: “If Peace is the Way, There Will Always Be Violence”. Please use the pol.is form - it will give all participants a chance to co-create the Anti-Debate from the outset.