I write this piece as a gentle challenge.
A few years ago, I wrote on Slugger,
“As I’ve got older, I’ve realised that as a general rule, the people I like & gravitate towards are left-leaning. They generally like nature, are artistic & care about helping those who are more vulnerable in our society.”
On a personal level, this is still broadly true, and yet I find myself increasingly troubled by elements of left activism, particularly online.
The first pricks of discomfort started on Instagram, where I saw people vilified in the comments section. They didn’t say exactly the right thing (despite appearing to want to), and so they were apparently deserving of ferocious condemnation. The activists seemed so consumed with anger, and the atmosphere was so hostile, I clicked unfollow very quickly, and so the only way they influenced me was briefly and negatively.
I found another social justice advocate with a different approach. Her focus is on helping people to think differently, rather than just demanding acquiescence or silence. A few years later, and I am still learning from her. She’s doing the hard work and reaping the rewards by increasing understanding and thus nurturing changes in behaviour.
I’ve become convinced that gatekeeping narrow ideas of ideology is the enemy of the greater aims of the left. Those fixated on maintaining these burn with a sense of their moral righteousness. And while they may thrive in the intensity of that, their zealotry is alienating people, rather than building consensus in society.
Shutting down civil dialogue and crushing disagreement means you avoid doing what is necessary for growth.
Loaded words are brought out very quickly and can sometimes be used as weapons to silence challenging conversations, which would be worth the effort to have. People can become afraid to speak, but also confused and resentful as to why they have been shut down. These feelings simmer, and a backlash builds. A tiny bit of research shows that while suppressing debate may appear to deliver short-term wins, it’s ultimately a cop out that does greater harm.
This popped up on my Instagram recently. “There is no trans debate, there are trans people and there are fascists who wish to dominate and control trans people.”
Many thousands of people liked the post, but I was perplexed. There is a trans debate. That debate might have been provoked by a small group, with very little interest hitherto in protecting women’s rights. But to suggest there is no debate is untrue, and to imply that it is limited to whether trans people should exist is duplicitous.
There are many people in our society, not just trans people and fascists.
In many ways, it demonstrates the problem, as I see it, which is the aversion to acknowledging complexity and thus the avoidance of dealing with it. Facing difficult questions and exploring nuance takes time and effort. However, it helps build consensus and understanding, and is therefore worthwhile.
Activists who are quick to look for traitors and who are quick to cancel or shame those with genuine questions?
Well, they don’t bring people with them; they turn people against them.
Making an echo chamber even more echoey is not the answer.
Originally from Co. Armagh. Unionist background; now pro-UI but not entirely at home in the nationalist camp. Frustrated by bias and blind spots in politics. I don’t like self-important types. Love a good conversation, with real listening. Member of the SDLP.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
