Cancel the culture war
Has the culture war turned us all into children? It looks like we have lost the ability to understand the nuances of the world that surrounds us or indeed listen to any idea or opinion that is not ours. Simultaneously, we seem to have convinced ourselves that our personal feelings should act as society’s moral compass. Put simply, we believe that we’re always right and that the world revolves around us – exactly like children.
I am not so much against the debates that animate the culture war; it puts forward many questions about how we look at and how we organise the society in which we live. The issues of this culture war make up our identities; they look at our past, reflect on the perpetual change of the present, and try and determine what the future should look like. No one should dismiss such issues as unimportant. However, it is how such debate is conducted that bothers me. The fact that such important discussions are being weaponised for a war that provides short-term political gains but does not bring our societies forward as a whole.
So why is it that in the last decade, political opponents have turned into enemies, and disagreements into battles? There is no single answer, but any good answer should contain a discussion on how social media has transformed how we consume news and a reflection on how inequalities have polarised debates about any topic. Not only wealth inequalities but also inequalities between urban and rural populations, racial inequalities, gender inequalities, and so on. Some have grown, some have not, yet all have become more visible. This visibility again represents a double-edged sword; on the one hand, awareness is key for inequalities to be resolved, yet on the other, the more visible inequalities are, the more divisive the discussions on them can become.
The reason why culture is so efficient at firing up an us-against-them mentality is that culture is what helps us make sense of the world. It is the sum of all our beliefs, and what helps us differentiate right from wrong. Therefore, when it comes to cultural matters, it is very hard, if not impossible, to see one’s beliefs labelled as “wrong” or “in need of change”. Those who push for change find it equally difficult to understand that others do not necessarily see change as an improvement. Therefore, discussions about history, religion, sexuality, and gender require an extra effort to listen and try and understand the position of those with whom we most disagree.
Some see Winston Churchill, for instance, as the great national hero, whilst for others he may personify Britain’s history of imperialism, which they may find uncomfortable and irreconcilable with their values. This example continually has spirits running high as it goes to the heart of British identity. However, despite the debate raging for years, little has come out of it to advance our understanding of Churchill’s legacy. That is because the debate has been first oversimplified, then weaponised. One side claims that Churchill is the greatest citizen the country has ever had, and therefore any possible wrongs are insignificant. The other claims that he was quite simply a white supremacist, and therefore should be cancelled. Very few people try to reconcile both ends of the debate.
The culture dispute over Churchill, like many others, is endless, especially as it seems that the priority is to provoke the other side, be it the “wokeys” or the “racists”, rather than advancing a reasoned discussion. This war of words has affected almost all issues of the contemporary world. Issues that just a decade ago were hardly seen as political are now placed at the centre of the culture war and used for easy wins, instead of bringing about meaningful progress.
In the past few years alone, we have seen how Covid and the reactions to it became political ammunition rather than genuine scientific exchanges. Similarly, in the US and increasingly here at home, discussion around climate change has been used to determine political allegiances rather than address a crisis that will affect the whole of humanity, regardless of individual political beliefs. Such attempts to divide the population by simplifying important issues are not new, yet this phenomenon in mainstream politics is the culture war’s newest form. Suella Braverman blaming “the tofu-eating wokerati” for all chaos in the country is just one example of how the ruling party taps into cultural issues to fuel division. Indeed, in an age of social media, short, emotional, and aggressive comments attract more attention than lengthy discussions and well-constructed arguments.
The Left side of the political spectrum is just as guilty of dividing people into cultural camps. Our culture defines us, and it is the lens through which we understand the world that surrounds us, which is why it is difficult to compromise. It seems that in their ambition for change (often legitimate), the Left often forgets about those who have grown up with traditional cultural norms. Most obviously, this can be seen in the way Left-wing liberals approach race, gender and history. Indeed, many are too quick to label any form of cultural exchange as cultural appropriation, any discussion about trans identity as transphobia, and most institutions that structure our societies as inherently racist and rooted in colonialism. This refusal to engage in a discussion surrounding these important topics, and the inability to understand or even consider the other side of the argument division has become the new norm in today’s political world. It has only contributed to an atmosphere of intellectual and conversational laziness, of cheap point-scoring, and reductive antagonism, which hinders any careful pursuit of Truth.
Politics has taken this unfortunate direction, but politicians are not the only ones to blame for this. We are all guilty of dumbing the other side down and clinging to caricatures of those we disagree with. Those who want to do away with Churchill’s statue on Parliament Square believe that those arguing for its protection must be abominable racists who cling on to Britain’s imperial past. The other way around, those who want to keep the statue see the other side as anti-British activists, who would be happiest to see the entire country crumble. We have all already tried to simplify the other side in such terms, no matter the issue at stake. Indeed, it is easier to live in a world where those who agree with me are “smart” and right, and those who don’t are “stupid” and wrong. Fortunately our world works differently.
Engaging with opinions that contradict our own on topics that are fundamental to how we view ourselves can be extremely difficult, which is why it is easier to build the political debate around the superficial and sensationalist aspects of these topics. We should not have to sit comfortably with contradictions that make up our societies and, in many ways, it is unhealthy that complex issues can be resolved into for-or-against and agree-or-disagree debates.
This division not only slows down progress by it shutting down important discussions, but it also weakens our western democracies, in an age where authoritarianism is rising. Indeed, these strong internal divisions on topics that define our society are what many see as the main downside of democracy. Some even believe that cultural polarisation will lead to a “decline of the West”. These divisions can weaken our democracy, but it is also this fundamental ability to disagree that constitutes our strength. It allows us to build societies in which the individual voice is valued, and individual freedoms are respected.
This equilibrium is fragile, and it is the responsibility of every individual to preserve it if we want to benefit from our freedoms. To do so, it is crucial that we resist the urge to simplify a debate in order to fit into a camp; and that we listen and try our best to understand those with whom we disagree the most. The old legal principle still applies: audi alteram partem (“listen to the other side”). The only antidote to perpetual culture war is for both sides to be heard with equal respect.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.
