In an era characterized by heightened political tensions and an increasingly interconnected society, the rise of hate speech and polarization has become a focal point in discussing current challenges to democracy.
The “Divided Democracy: Polarization, Hate Speech and the Future of America” keynote, hosted by the Colorado State University department of philosophy March 19, brought speakers Robert Talisse, professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University, and Seana Shiffrin, professor of philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Ad
The keynote was part of the Bodaken Philosophy Symposium at CSU and served as the spring semester headline public lecture.
Talisse and Shiffrin both delivered speeches focusing on hate speech and ideological polarization, respectively. Their presentations, when combined, provided a look into the current state of political philosophy and offered explanations for the phenomena individuals witness and experience in their interactions.
“Unlike the European approach, speakers in the United States might ally themselves in public spaces with repugnant positions associated with the advocacy of inequality, the advocacy of oppression, domination and even the efficacy of violence towards specific identity groups,” Shiffrin said.
Shiffrin concluded her keynote by saying that while hate speech is legally protected, that does not mean it should be ethically accepted.
“As awful as some of this is, … I think ethically, it should not happen,” Shiffrin said. “I also think these are roughly the right legal stances. And further, … there are important aims and difficult issues about how to ensure that the campus and classroom are meaningfully accessible to everyone.”
Talisse’s keynote focused on the philosophical and psychological processes behind polarization and division.
“The moral conflict resides in the idea that I have to see you as my equal despite the fact that I also see you as somebody who’s on the wrong side of things,” Talisse said. “It’s very, very difficult to maintain that stance. And it’s a challenge. Polarization makes it worse.”
Talisse said the negative emotions associated with elections and candidates portraying their opponent as the worst option are damaging to the democratic process.
“Elites can seek election (or) reelection simply by stoking negative emotions; they don’t actually have to produce legislative results,” Talisse said. “That’s bad for democracy.”
Ad
Talisse emphasized the exposure to the polarization loop and how it bleeds into political citizenship.
“We are exposed to the polarization loop simply in the course of doing the things we ought to be doing,” Talisse said. “Democratic citizens have to remember to take responsibility for their politics. They have to engage. They have to participate.”
Talisse said large-scale polarization problems are fixed by small steps.
“It’s a mistake — although it’s an attractive one — to think that large-scale problems always take large-scale, big institutional fixes,” Talisse said. “Sometimes you can fix a big problem by taking small steps.”
One such small step, Talisse said, is simply to spend time around other people.
“Figure out ways to engage in public and nonpolitical cooperative endeavors,” Talisse said. “By which I mean cooperative endeavors with others (who) you just don’t know what their politics are.”
That’s all it takes to actively work against the pull of polarization, Talisse said. Spending time with people without focusing on politics or ideology helps protect them because no one is immune to the effects of ideological polarization.
“You’re not special,” Talisse said. “Having true beliefs doesn’t make you invulnerable to these extremification dynamics. Acknowledge it — acknowledge that you’re vulnerable.”
Reach Hannah Parcells and Allie Seibel at news@collegian.com or on Twitter @csucollegian.
