Those who call themselves humanists are amazed by the antisemitism wave that has emerged in different parts of the world, which frightens, not only because of the violence of the action, but also because of the passivity of the reaction. The little transgressions are the ones that later on grow and transform into hate speeches, which end up in humanitarian catastrophes. Societies start to fall when they tolerate things that should be intolerable.
Those who believe in cultural diversity are concerned of the reject towards the immigrant, which leads to political extremism and violence.
Those who believe in gender equality are looking at how the extraordinary feminist movement is fighting against cultural and institutional barriers that seem unbreakable.
Those who value democracy are surprised because issues that break the national unity and paralyze the system are installed, such as the case with Brexit in England. In many countries, some think polarizing is useful for winning elections.
Those who believe that nature is a common good that must be preserved for future generations, fail to understand how such an obvious issue is denied and fought against by a good part of the world leadership.
Those who think that equality is essential for social integration, do not admit that an invisible but insurmountable wall is built, leaving an increasingly large group of economically vulnerable people without a future.
Each one of these opposite tendencies go from one extreme to another, stressing people, families and institutions.
These few examples must make those of us who believe in humanism, cultural diversity, gender equality, environmental protection and social integration, reflect. These values have been incorporated in our Constitution and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. However, theoretical current reflection is broader, cultural.
¿Polarize or integrate? That is the question
In political philosophy, studies linked to social emotions that inspire governability have regained value. World history reveals clearly that there have been different types of governments, some of them based on fear and the spread of hate speeches against a real or fictitious enemy. Literature has shown us how many win themselves an enemy with the objective of winning elections .The chronical exhibits way many examples about the tragedies of polarization.
Argentina has been subject of analysis on this issue by several authors, who do not understand how we still couldn’t resolve the polarization that began between the Unitarians and the Federals, which lasts till the present. The book by Nicolás Shumway is recommendable. The book indicates that there really hasn’t been an “invention” of Argentina.
The idea of “invention” means the opposite of polarization. The construction of a common ideal. Nussbaum comments the cases of Lincoln in U.S.A. or Rabindranath Tagore in India as examples of unifying speeches that helped divided societies. It’s about noticeable leaders that, just like Mandela, didn’t promote divisions. They tried to overcome them, unifying peoples because wisdom teaches that there is no future if we are in a constant fight.
History shows that there are cycles: in the 20th century, many societies were guided by hope: changing the system and making it more equal or more independent, or being the first power. In the 21st century, many societies are guided by fear: terrorism, immigration, economic crisis, past, the absence of future.
Fear can be a resource used in the immediate future, but its effects are always negative. From a neuroscientific point of view, it’s a factor that paralyzes because the brain starts detecting changes that aren’t there and evaluates the risks excessively. In the economic field, the aversion to risk stops decision-making, fundamentally investments. In the institutional system, “vetocracy” emerges. That is to say, the ability of vetoing a whole initiative because of fear, just like Agamben or Sunstein described.
Emotions are contagious and that is why we speak of popular joy or sadness, not as a sum of individual feelings but as a collective phenomenon. Repeated polarization over time produces the loss of hope, a kind of depressive society, which does not consider itself valuable. Thus we say “this is Argentina”, as a demerit.
We are living moments of great importance throughout the planet, because options are being discussed, options that will define the lives of young people and children today: the almost medieval fanaticism that leads to persecution or interreligious dialogue; gender equality or discrimination against women; The multicultural society or the rejection of those who are different; equal opportunities or ostracism of the humble; the protection of nature or its destruction.
The former are values that can be disseminated as integrative hopes, the latter can generate transient triumphs and permanent tragedies.
The responsibility of this generation is to strengthen the rule of law with the values that motivated the struggle and sacrifice of so many people and that will determine how future generations will live.