Anger, Biscuits and Voices of Dissent
In which the author uses biscuits to quieten his father - and a particular biscuit incident leads to thoughts on dissenting voices!
My Dad always had a habit of shouting at the television. When I was a child of course these outbursts meant nothing to me. I had since returned home – in my late 50’s – to be his carer. I have to say that at this stage I was still none the wiser as to what his shouts at news and current affairs programmes actually meant! So I chose not to question his outbursts, so as to maintain domestic harmony! And in these later years of course I had the wherewithal to offer him a biscuit to try and shut him up!
One particular event stays in my mind. A political programme on TV was hosting a rather controversial figure in British politics. I sensed an outburst from Dad at any moment, so I fetched him a biscuit. But oddly he remained silent all through the TV interview and debate – the biscuit poised half way between plate and mouth.
So there it was – a voice of dissent on TV, and so controversial that nothing like it has really been aired since. So shocking it even shut up my Dad!
It leads me to thinking about how much we should tolerate dissent. One of the trickiest questions in politics and indeed in morality is, should we tolerate the intolerant? Should we accept people with extreme views, such as that person I had watched with my Dad that night?
It’s not a question that lends itself to a yes or no answer. On the yes side, we might say that society should value free speech, freedom of the press and the like. On the no side, we might say that a line needs to be drawn where free speech becomes abuse, harassment or incitement to violence. So that’s the thing. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere, but where do we draw it? We might all offer different opinions and somehow society as a whole needs to make a judgement about where the line is drawn on a society-wide basis. I’d suggest that the line needs to be constantly watched and constantly re-negotiated, as media, opinion and circumstances change so rapidly.
This matter then – the matter of dealing with intolerance – is a troubling area of politics in general because it challenges the very foundations of what politics is supposed to be addressing. Here’s five potential foundations for what government is about:
For the safety and protection of citizens.
To allow all citizens to achieve their full potential – that is, to flourish.
To avoid gross disparities of wealth, such that all citizens regard society as organised fairly, so far as that is possible.
To protect the ‘natural commons’ of land, air and sea and the natural eco-systems that these support.
And the fifth: The form of government itself should be open to review by citizens – that is, for most countries – the constitution should be negotiable by the electorate.
Well of course someone might bitterly disagree with some or all of these notions. Not only that, someone might see the stated aims of government as being a cover for a different agenda! So we have our dissenting voices – what do we do?
I’m not going to try to defend the rationality of the aims given above, or indeed the stated aims of any actual government or political party. To do that would lead us perhaps to a fractured debate that might result in the different ‘sides’ becoming just more entrenched in their opinions.
Instead, can we just agree that some political views, whatever they may be, are controversial, challenging, unorthodox? And if we agree this point, then all I’d venture to ask is, why do some people hold views of this type? Why do some people choose to be off the mainstream, dissenting voices?
In answer to this, the first thing to say is that these are generally not bad people. They may be angry, controversial and outspoken, but not bad. The reason I say this is that, for the most part, bad people are just not interested in politics! So they’re not likely to have an opinion either way, let alone seek a platform for their opinions. But of course history has delivered us with plenty of notable exceptions! So it can be easy for us to brand people whose opinions we find deeply upsetting as deranged psychopaths! But I urge you to consider that this is probably not true! No matter how objectionable the opinions might be, there is likely to be some genuine motive at the root of why people defend the opinions and political views that they have come to hold.
So our second step is to consider the deeper reasons behind those controversial views.
Let’s say that there is some ‘higher truth’ that is being sought. This makes sense since – if the stated aims of government (or society at large) seem to be suspicious or just outright wrong – then there must be some higher truth that is brought to bear in order to challenge the mistakes. What might that higher truth be? Well, I mention fairness in the brief summary of a government’s aims. But there it is a limited form of fairness – simply amounting to an equitable (though not necessarily equal) distribution of resources. We might first of all disagree and say that a government should not try to impose some kind of financial re-distribution or we might disagree the other way and say that the government should aim for a much more equal society. But behind all this, fairness might be considered a much wider value than this, and rightly so. Of all moral ideas, fairness is the one that could most reasonably claim to be ‘innate’ – that is, we are more or less born with a sense of fairness and it is beyond human ingenuity to argue for some more basic standard by which to measure right and wrong. Even – I would hazard to say – those who believe in God would never, ever accept someone claiming that God does not act fairly!
So my contention here is that sooner or later, in any debate, one side will say that what the other side is proposing is not fair. Then the other side will respond in kind, that is, with a counter-argument based on fairness.
We might well be horrified by what some people consider to be fair. But even so, the question still comes down to fairness. Look again at the five ideas around government mentioned earlier. We could re-frame all of them as fairness arguments:
It’s fair that governments protect us (because, for instance, we pay our taxes).
It’s fair that all citizens should be able to flourish (because all people are valuable in and of themselves).
It’s fair that there should be an equitable distribution of resources (because everyone has the right to at least a reasonable standard of living, but at the same time people with outstanding ability or who work exceptionally hard deserve to be rewarded).
It’s fair that we protect the environment. (Because we ultimately rely on nature for everything and if we destroy her we will likely destroy human life as well. And because animals and plants have a claim over nature as well as humans.)
It’s fair that the way society is governed is open for review by its citizens.
And so, with any discussion, no matter how bizarre the claims that are being made, we can find fairness lurking behind them.
But now the really tricky bit! Sometimes it may be possible to argue people around to a different point of view (and this means essentially convincing them that their way of understanding fairness has been mistaken in some way). But when it comes to more extreme views, no amount of reasoned debate or shouting is going to work! The more extreme the view the more strongly its proponents will cling to it, because it is just too costly to give in – to give in would be to lose face in a big way!
So how might they be persuaded, if we are of a mind to try?
Some of you reading this aren’t going to like my answers here! But hey! I hope you’ll give me a hearing.
First of all, give up any notion of trying to change the other person’s mind! That’s right, persuasion just ain’t going to work! So give it up. Instead, just shut up and listen. Listening to other people gives them dignity – the dignity all of us deserve (even people we find obnoxious!). Then wait. There’s no need to ask any questions, because the person with strong opinions will be only too ready to share them with you! There’s going to be an unfairness message buried somewhere in amongst the rhetoric. And here’s the crucial part. It might be that the argument boils down to a straight-forward case of political unfairness – by which I mean some unfairness in society, in which case they may be open to some discussion about what fairness should mean. But it may be that the ‘unfairness’ is some kind of personal hurt or grievance. Or the two may be mixed. Should we point out the personal hurt behind the political rhetoric? Unless they have become a close friend I’d say certainly not! Just listen and listen and listen, because eventually someone can talk their way into seeing things differently just through their own talking. If they cannot talk, then, as with most of us, our thoughts cannot move forward.
All of this that I’ve said above is really about one-to-one, in person conversations. There is a whole different matter of addressing people who hold political office. If we want our views to be heard then firstly acknowledge that this is the current set-up – they are in power and you are not. And secondly, our argument is never with the person (even if their personal life may be highly dubious) but with their actions within government and/or their policies as a government or an opposition party. So be polite, straight-forward, rational and keep to the point. This much should be obvious. But clearly it is happening less and less. As we are given greater and greater access to our leaders through social media so the levels of abuse that they suffer grow exponentially.
My further thought then is whether to engage with these so-called ‘trolls’? What motivates the troll? Well they may be those people with extreme viewpoints that we have been discussing up until now. If they want their views heard properly then verbal abuse of serving politicians is not the way to go about it. It’s more likely however that they have a grievance with life rather than with politics. Trying to have an online conversation with such a person is going to be very difficult indeed. Given the violence and abuse of many posts by trolls, we cannot easily intervene. The angry person will never admit that their anger is coming from hurt. But, as someone has said, we harm others by our unexamined pain. I am grateful to one of my online followers for pointing out that sometimes people have opinions that barely make it to the level of conscious thought – it is all emotion. And therefore trying to have a debate with someone like this is not going to work. We’d need to reach them on some emotional level rather than a rational level. Encountering someone like this in real life though can be a daunting prospect! Best back away slowly and then run like hell! But if listening is an option, then this at least might offer a place of peace – and that, potentially, can communicate at the emotional level. But clearly, none of that can work for the online troll.
If we cannot really tackle the angry troll and our voices are necessarily modest and quiet when we approach someone holding political office, then, you may be thinking, there’s not much left for us! But I’d venture to say that the polite listening and the forging of friendships with neighbours and work colleagues is actually a very powerful force! Every day there are millions of conversations. So, what if we make our conversations ones where we listen carefully, look for the fairness issues, look for the underlying hurt and then simply bear witness to the way other people see the world? Don’t argue, don’t offer advice, just listen.
