Part 1 of this series suggests that the process of polarised thinking - and language - is subtle and unconscious. It especially permeates societies that are divided by differences in ethnicity, social class, ideology and religion. Part 2 expands on this observation.
The polarised thinker
“Never mind the outside world, we know what to think.”
“It’s not our fault, it’s them to blame.”
From our childhood days, we have always wanted to know who the good guys are, so as to distinguish them from the bad ones. The good guys are rewarded; the bad guys punished.
This neatness and simplicity appeal to the polarised thinker. It provides us with what we need to know, what to agree with, and what we must attack.
It saves us the effort of thinking for ourselves, to be self-reflexive. It enables us to acquire the self-confidence that accrues from following the socially-sanctioned dogma of the times.
We feel safe in the certainty of our opinion, and finality in our judgment of events, issues and people. Polarised thinking, as such, gives no allowance for ambiguity.
What if others differ? No matter. They will learn to see the “truth” sooner or later. We will win in the end because we know it to be true.
As such, the polarised thinker holds a static picture of the world. Any change is merely a shift to the other extreme. The dynamics, however, remain the same.
It’s a world seen through blinders. Polarised communication reinforces one’s beliefs. Anything contrary to our strong beliefs is attacked, ridiculed, rejected or ignored.
The 'circle of coherence'
“There’s nothing more to be said; it’s all there.”
“You just don’t understand; it’s no use talking to you.”
“Stop searching, we have the answer.”
Absolute terms like “all, none, every, never, always” are commonly used. It’s all black-and-white with no shades of grey in between.
There’s little leeway for differences. Degrees of plausibility, probability, and maybes are unheard of and considered as weaknesses.
Is open and fruitful communication possible in these instances? Not likely.
To the polarised thinker, to have a strong opinion means one is sure of oneself as surely as being ambiguous is a sign of weakness. Such is the profound satisfaction of experiencing the certainty that we are always “right”, and the other is usually “wrong”.
In his 2015 book “Why Religions Matter”, religious studies scholar John Bowker refers to this certainty of thoughts as our “circle of coherence” that we wield when we engage intellectually with others. Any opinion outside our “circle of coherence” is seen as flawed.
We see this phenomenon in the literal interpretation of holy texts by people of different faiths. Where the interpretation is based on the premise that holy texts are revealed to humanity by God, it necessarily leads to the conviction that scripture is incapable of error.
Questioning the interpretations of scripture by believers and non-believers alike must, therefore, be done from within the “circle of coherence” with reference to its doctrinal teachings.
Interpretations that fall outside the “circle of coherence” are seen as deviations, and, at worst, heresies.
This, as Bowker explains in the chapter on the paradox of religions, is why “so much argument amongst believers and non-believers, and so much dialogue between religions, is ultimately futile.
The circles or inner circles remain isolated because coherence can only be tested according to the criteria within each particular circle”.
Having only one point of view means that there is no element of contradiction. The polarised thinker is absolutely sure of himself and convicted in his beliefs.
Can he see a second point of view, and a third? Can he see that events are caused by different factors, not the simple cause-and-effect mode of thinking that he unconsciously uses?
If he could perceive more than one point of view, would he then be so sure of himself?
Research on perception has shown that external phenomena do not exist on their own. There is always the “observer effect” where the very presence and participation of the observer affects the event.
Observations are not completely independent of the observer. Each of us would have a different picture of the same event or phenomena.
That no two eyewitnesses would give an exactly similar account of an accident bears testimony to this fact. Concrete events can be variously interpreted, more so with abstract issues – from our fundamental rights to pursue happiness and responsible citizenship to global warming and globalisation.
Therefore, when we use words to describe events and phenomena, we have to be aware of the different meanings and connotations from the language we use.
Otherwise, the result would be our using of words for crossed purposes, for instance “ketuanan Melayu” and “pendatang asing”, while ignoring the cultural contexts and political implications of using those words.
While it is true that we cannot know everything about anything, are we willing to admit our uncertainty, hence steering away from the trappings of polarised thinking?
ERIC LOO is Senior Fellow (Journalism) at the School of the Arts, English & Media, Faculty of Law, Humanities & Arts, University of Wollongong, Australia. He is founding editor of "Asia Pacific Media Educator". Email him at eloo@uow.edu.au.- Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.