No more ‘in-between’? 

by Erika Helene Etminan, Hamilton

As a newcomer in Montana, I experienced the US election campaign live for the first time, albeit from a spectator position. I enjoyed listening to people from both parties and learning about their perspectives, the arguments they put forward, and the underlying fears and concerns. It was very educational! But now, after the election, some friends want to know which side I’m on. Neither! I find myself between the fronts, but that’s not an easy position in this tense climate. Conversations become more laborious, faces more serious and voices more hesitant. Eyes are questioning, almost demanding, waiting for confirmation of their own position. People are becoming more cautious around me, but my skill in such conversations has increased. I bravely defend the position of the neutral middle, but the time of the middle seems to be over. In such conversations, I perceive that the distance is growing and that the conversations end faster than before. It is still my goal to be in contact with people from both sides, but I feel that some friends are slowly withdrawing from me. There has already been such a breakdown in communication in the times of COVID, and even then, there was this polarization between friend and foe. It was a time of contradictions that irreconcilably exclude each other. No more compromises and no more in-between spaces! It’s either/or! Okay, I have to show my color: Where do you stand, Helene? Some friends want to know whether I am a friend or an enemy. There is no escape. But what should I answer if my color is not blue or red, but purple? Purple is a beautiful color, now it has been removed from the range of possibilities. But is this really the case, or is it what polarization makes me think and fear?

This polarization between liberal and conservative can be observed worldwide, in politics, in religions, and it is causing serious concern. The nuances are lost and the subtleties fall silent. Polarization creates tension in friendships and families, between colleagues and neighbors; it brings distancing and isolation. Then everyone sits in their “bubble.” This may be comfortable for some, but at the same time it is the loss of what we have in common, of cohesion as a whole. Polarization is a cultural impoverishment, but it is possibly our future. Perhaps we will soon only talk to like-minded people who sit in the same ideological bubble. Or is there still an alternative, a bubble with friends in the middle who think purple is a great color and a real possibility? People who are willing to talk to each other despite their differences of opinion? But wouldn’t that be a bubble too?

With my position in the middle, I certainly have my own point of view, but above all, I have many questions: Why is the divisive more important than the common for some people? The human ego thrives on demarcation, okay, we know that, it’s not new. So, is the reason for this polarization the ego? But egos have been around for ages, whereas polarization is relatively new. Perhaps the ego needs simplistic either/or positions in order to deal with an increasingly complex world? Does it need a rock-solid point of view so that it can feel right? Or to put it another way: why do people actually think that what they “believe in” is true? And why are they so sure that they themselves – and only they alone – are in possession of the political or religious truth? Unfortunately, you cannot possess truth, at most you can strive for it and bring your own life into harmony with it. But perhaps the most important question concerns the background to this polarization: Who benefits from this division? Divide and rule, an ancient political strategy that has always worked. But who benefits from it this time? Which power – so far un-recognized in the background – is possibly using this strategy to separate people and then rule over them? Divide and rule, an ancient motto with very old questions that should urgently be asked again!