dancingthroughchaos

‘Unchecked, this loud and occasionally violent ideology propagates a particular view of history, reality and human nature that skews intellectual enquiry, erodes diversity and stifles debate.’ – Dr David Landrum

I am just back from Cape Town where we are still on Level 6B water restrictions.  That means using less than 50 litres of water per person per day.  ‘Day Zero’ – the day that we might make history by being the first city to turn on the taps and find that nothing flows out anymore – has been pushed back to next year, depending on whatever welcome water the winter storms bring in over the next couple of months.  Until the dams and reservoirs are full again we will be taking ‘on/off’ showers of 90 seconds or less while standing in a bucket; this water will then be used for flushing the loos and washing the floors.  Laundry is a cold wash on a double rinse cycle only when you’ve run out of underwear and can warrant a full load; washing up happens in 3 inches of kettle water (I waste too much waiting for it to run hot) only when there are no more clean mugs in the cupboard; we use paper plates, and drinking water comes in 5 litre bottles bought from the supermarket.  It’s known across the province as, ‘The New Normal’.

It’s a phrase I feel that we could use in other forums too.  My Twitter feed and facebook pages are full of political and social activity; of people offended and offending; of controversial claims and counter claims but very few questions, and even less debate.  It seems as though this is also, ‘The New Normal’.  Granted, social media is not the ideal forum for any in depth discussions but, nevertheless, it baffles me that democratic cultures which have, for so long, prided themselves on free speech and free expression spend so much time and energy raging against those who say things with which they disagree.

I don’t know about you, but I am fed up with hearing from the anti-Brexiters, which is strange in some ways since I voted to stay in myself so, technically, I should be in ‘that camp’.   However, I understand that the down-side of living in a democracy means I won’t always have things go my way (more’s the pity); so, while I could simultaneously throw a tantrum and my toys out of my EU approved cot, it seems to me that it would now be more useful to go from where we are rather than from where the minority (albeit a small one) of us, wish we were.  Wouldn’t the smart thing be to hunker down, pull together and come up with some solid plans, deals and legislation for a new way ahead which we can develop and refine, rather than tearing down every suggestion and thus play into the hands of our international critics?  If we have to make it work, then let’s do that; somehow.  ‘The New Normal’ would apparently prefer to have us tear ourselves apart in a self-destructive frenzy of recrimination and rhetoric.

Robust debate used to be a hallmark of our parliamentary and educational establishments, both of which provided multiple opportunities and platforms for exploring all sorts of ideas about the world, science, ethics, faith, innovation, theories, philosophies, ancient wisdom, the arts etc. ‘The New Normal’ in this context, looks very different these days. Some universities now vet their speakers to ensure that no one gets upset, which pretty much puts the lid on rigorous debate. How can anyone learn, develop understanding and apply it to make informed choices about all the challenging and changing conundrums the world throws at us?  If the protagonists and proponents, ‘take every opportunity to infer the normality of their views by challenging, delegitimising and ultimately silencing any dissenting views and voices’, as claimed by Dr David Landrum, then we will be the poorer for it.  He also points out that: ‘The language… is about hate speech and offence, and involves virtue signalling, trigger-warnings, and no-platforming, micro-aggressions and the provision of safe-spaces to exclude individuals who might hold ‘unsafe’ or different views – whether that is Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer or Melanie Phillips.’ 

Are we losing our back bone to the point that we can no longer consider the opinions of others or respect a differing view point?  Might this be the result of modern parenting and schooling, which has been criticised for not leaving room for children to learn that they can be wrong.  Red pen crosses  are not allowed on work anymore. Too many children have not been taught, by either school or home, how to deal with the process of not winning – we used to call it ‘losing’ – whether at a game of Ludo, the sports day egg & spoon race or a spelling test, lest they be scarred for life.  MP Sam Gyimar, former Oxford graduate and currently joint Minister for Higher Education, who has been touring university campuses in the UK, was recently quoted as saying, “What universities should be promoting is wider debate, and what seems to be happening is a narrow debate around a narrow set of issues where there are entrenched positions…we want a much richer set of debates.’  Digging for truth, exploring alternative views, considering unpopular theories or discussing the basis for our personal convictions no longer seems to be be welcome.  ‘The New Normal’ appears to be that truth is whatever you want it to be; there are no absolutes.  Truth has become a personal and liquid concept rather than a plumb line or objective reality.  Except for gravity, of course; that’s still a universal objective reality as far as I know, although maybe that’s now all a matter of perception too…

You can identify as male, female, feline, bovine or maritime if you wish, but gravity will still be operational, as will your paired chromosomes.  XX or XY appear to be the only choices currently available; biology selects those for us, and as Vaughan Roberts points out, ‘Biology is not bigotry.’  Personally, I welcome the fact that issues of gender and sexuality are being more openly spoken about, and I can only imagine the physical, emotional and social pain of  those individuals who are living with complex challenges and enormously difficult choices.  Unfortunately,  most of these cases morph into dangerously emotive issues which are flagged without solid, scientifically sound facts and not always with a great deal of compassion either.  It is not oppressive or puritanical to question this sort of dilemma.  Everyone’s value judgements are based on something – a faith of some description.  We all have our filters.  None of us comes from a place of neutrality.  Any one who values one thing over and against another  – that’s all of us – is in itself,  ‘a declaration of faith’.  Far too often, discussion is suppressed, in an agenda that seems to be primarily characterised by bullying and hectoring, rather than by discussion or by measured speaking and listening.  I have seen barely a glimmer of a desire to explore facts, learn the meaning of unfamiliar terms, or much grace for, or from,  anyone to change their ‘position’ based on the outcomes of any of these. 

Surely the question of truth, which is as old as history itself – ask Plato  & Aristotle – shouldn’t be thrown out with quite such abandon.  ‘Life, people, politics and social action cannot be reduced to one-word categories; when they are, falsehood and political manipulation become the  norm.’ 

We’ve had a prime case of ‘political manipulation’ play out in water-starved Cape Town over recent months, since the Premier of the Western Cape, Helen Zille, made the rather unwise decision to share her views on past colonialism in a tweet.   Had she submitted a 100,000 word thesis on the topic it could have been open to misinterpretation, but to compress her thoughts into such a tight format was not smart.  The vitriol and back-lash from this one event catalysed a spectacular unravelling of confidence in her suitability for the position.  She had had the audacity to suggest that perhaps not everything that happened during that dark period was bad.  She might as well have condoned cannibalism and child sacrifice.   In all the ensuing furore, the one question which was never asked as far as I can tell was, “Is that true?”  Perhaps it’s  the passing of time that allows us to ask such questions, or is it just forbidden in this millennia?  In 2000, the BBC produced a programme called ‘What the Romans Did for Us’ , which explored our own history of being colonised.  I am currently sitting 30 metres from the famous Roman baths from which this city derives its name.  Their obsession with bathing brought some welcome hygiene to Britain; they also brought good roads and central heating.  Granted, they were intent on political domination for the sake of their own empire, and accomplished it with bloody brutality; they were certainly not here for the purpose of making new friends.

This oppressive past leaves us with the choice of either raising a class action against Italy for all the injustices and hurt they caused our forefathers (intriguing but not hugely practical), or to recognise that a turbulent time in history for which none of us currently alive are responsible, brought both positive and negative outcomes for our fledgling nation.   The fact is, it happened, albeit it 55 years before the birth of Christ, and here we are enjoying hot baths and warm houses.  Helen Zille was vilified and her credibility destroyed; but what about that question, “Is what she is saying true?”  I still think it’s a crucial question, but In ‘The New Normal’ this is, apparently, irrelevant.  It’s also deeply disturbing.  After all, exchanging truth for political correctness was the basis for George Orwell’s nightmare vision of ‘1984’ …

All this leads me to the conclusion that it must be time for a new, ‘New Normal’; a place from which we can champion truth without bludgeoning anyone into agreement, and which throws ‘political correctness’ back into the pit from whence it came.  A new, ‘New Normal’ might be welcomed if it were identified by it’s kindness, willingness to listen, courage to forgive and a distrust of anything which sets itself up against a desire to pursue truth, justice and the uplifting of the downtrodden.  I’d love to see sensible debate back on the agenda without smoke and mirrors, spin or spite.  We would do well in Western culture, and beyond, to look again at what is portrayed as ‘reasonable’, ‘open-minded’ and ‘tolerant’. Collectively and individually we must continue to challenge bullying in all its ugly forms: political, sexual, religious and social because I am surely not alone in thinking that this ‘New Normal’ is currently anything but.