Quote Of The Day #55

“There is the moral dualism that sees good and evil as instincts within us between which we must choose. But there is also what I will call pathological dualism that sees humanity itself as radically… divided into the unimpeachably good and the irredeemably bad. You are either one or the other.”

One of the main reasons I started this blog in January 2017 was the distaste I felt for the aggressive and binary nature of much political ‘debate’ in the second decade of the twenty-first century. I make no claim to be an original thinker so it is heartening to read that many others feel the same way as I. Jonathan Sacks served as Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth between 1991 and 2013; he is also a member of the House of Lords. I would agree entirely with Sacks’ characterisation that some people view others as either “unimpeachably good” or “irredeemably bad.” However, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago…

 

“The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

 

However, Sacks himself is not altogether free of what he calls “pathological dualism” – his recent description of Jeremy Corbyn’s 2013 spiel about ‘Zionists’ (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more) not understanding ‘English irony’ as the most offensive speech in British politics since Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 certainly smacked of hyperbole.

 

If you look back in this blog, you will quickly see that I have no time at all for the divisive and racist ideology of identity politics. It is very much used as a form of “pathological dualism” – people inside the designated ‘victim’ group are entirely virtuous by dint of being ‘oppressed’ whereas their ‘oppressors’ are completely evil and responsible for all the ‘suffering’ experienced by the ‘victim.’ Everything said or done by ‘oppressors’ is interpreted in the worst possible way, the exact opposite of what has been called the principle of charity.

 

The principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric requires a listener to interpret a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible. One should assume that another person uses words in the ordinary way, makes true statements, makes valid arguments and says something interesting. This is the polar opposite of the way most apostles of identity politics work; they assume their opponents are twisting words, making false statements, are guilty of making mendacious arguments and simply trying ensure their ‘privilege’ is maintained. Instead of trying to include everyone in the in-group, as Martin Luther King did when he demanded America live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, too many people try to unite their own group by demonising an out-group. One of the most alarming trends of our times is the way new words – often ending in ‘phobia’ or ‘ism’ – are used as cudgels to beat opponents rather than in pursuit of the truth. Similarly, words such as ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’ have had their meanings stretched so far so as to cover just about anything the speaker dislikes.

 

It is a truism that one makes peace with an enemy not a friend. The red state against blue state madness in the USA or the crazed rhetoric about the future of Britain’s relationship with the European Union from both sides of the Leave/Remain schism in the UK are symptomatic of political systems that have forgotten the art of compromise. If you believe that you and your ‘side’ have all the answers and that your opponents are evil and wrong then not only are you unbelievably arrogant and stupid but you will never achieve any of your aims.

 

I will end with a quote from Nelson Mandela, a man who spent 27 years in jail but who was able to renounce violence and make peace with the people who took so much time away from him…

 

“When we dehumanise and demonise our opponents, we abandon the possibility of peacefully resolving our differences, and seek to justify violence against them.”