Why is truth such a rare quality in our polarized world?

David Cottam says honesty, greater self-awareness and tolerance are key traits if we are to make progress

'Ithink, therefore I am." The renowned phrase by the 17th-century French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes was his ultimate definition of a statement that could not be doubted. It was the pithy if somewhat obscure culmination of Descartes' search for truth and self-validation in a world where perception and reality did not always seem to coincide. If that was true in the 17th century, it is surely even more true in today's world of instant communication, fake news, artificial intelligence and polarized opinions.

Descartes' philosophical logic still works today, but in our polarized world it often seems that a more accurate formula for self-validation would be: "I condemn, therefore I am." It may be a built-in human characteristic that we need to justify to ourselves our decisions, actions, beliefs and ways of life. Indeed, self-validation is probably a desirable or even an essential component of positive mental health. What is less desirable, however, is the tendency to validate our lives by the condemnation of those with different views, beliefs or values. In our polarized world, it often seems that too many people see issues in black and white, with no room for shades of gray or nuanced positions.

This is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, people have condemned others who live their lives differently or who have different beliefs. Over the centuries, this has been the fundamental reason for religious intolerance, bigotry and violence. Medieval Crusades against Islam, religious wars between Catholics and Protestants, antisemitic persecution and pogroms, and terrorism by religious fanatics are all examples of hostility against others who hold different beliefs. Clearly, for some zealots the ultimate form of self-validation is to kill those people whose very presence poses a perceived threat to their own religious convictions and hopes of eternal salvation.

There are countless other ways people justify their beliefs, decisions or actions by attacking those who have taken the opposite path. At its most mundane, it can be seen in the behavior of soccer fans. The word "fans" is, of course, an abbreviation of "fanatics" and this is certainly an appropriate term to use for the bitter hostility felt by some supporters toward other clubs. As a general rule, the nearer the other club is geographically, the greater are the feelings of hostility. In Manchester, the bitterness between United and City is one such example. In Glasgow, it's the same story with Celtic and Rangers. The intensity of such local rivalries stems from the need for fans to justify to themselves why they chose their particular club, rather than the neighboring one just down the road. Self-validation is always easier if the alternatives are demonized, no matter how irrational this is.

Although the image of soccer is tarnished by such thinking, this can be easily dismissed as a curious throwback to ancient tribal loyalties. It's parochial, trivial and in the bigger scheme of things unimportant. In sharp contrast to this, in the world of politics and international relations the same sort of tribal thinking has much more serious consequences.

In many parts of the world, and certainly in the West, political affiliations, once made, are notoriously difficult to alter. As with soccer affiliations, people are generally reluctant to change allegiances once they have picked their political side and demonized the opposition. To do so would be to undermine not just their past decisions and values, but also their sense of identity. In the US this is currently seen in the strong Republican support persisting for Donald Trump. The numbers have barely wavered despite a string of scandals, ranging from accusations of sexual abuse by Trump to his being charged first with mishandling classified documents and then with conspiracy to defraud the US.
Trump supporters, it seems, would rather ignore any possibility of wrongdoing, preferring to condemn the opposing Democratic Party and persist with the belief that the last election was stolen from their hero.

In the UK, it's been a similar story with Brexit. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Brexit has damaged the UK's financial, economic and political standing in the world, the vast majority of people who voted "Leave" seven years ago are extremely reluctant to admit they were wrong. Rather than concede that their judgment was flawed, they prefer to maintain the fiction that Brexit was the right decision but has merely been poorly executed so far. Self-validation, it seems, holds greater sway than economic facts.

It's in the world of international relations, however, where self-validation is at its most extreme and most dangerous. Since the middle of the 20th century, the world has been polarized between those countries that espouse Western liberal democracy and those which do not. This division has led to the condemnation of each side by the other. In the West, a Cold War mentality has dominated international relations for the past 70 years, with the Soviet Union, Russia and China taking turns to be portrayed as public enemy No 1. As we have seen with religion, soccer and politics, once perceptions and divisions have been established, they are difficult to shift. The need for self-validation impels each side to cling to its beliefs about the other, often irrespective of the facts. Demonization of the perceived enemy is therefore the default position to affirm and justify each side's chosen political system.

We can see this phenomenon in microcosm in Hong Kong. Since the violent protests of 2019-20 and the subsequent introduction of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, people have taken sides. The vast majority of people are relieved that the chaos and destruction of the riots is now over and that Hong Kong's normal way of life has now resumed. For others, however, there is residual hostility to the National Security Law and a reluctance to accept the first part of the "one country, two systems" equation. Two years ago, the UK polarized these two sides further by offering residency in Britain to those Hong Kong people who wanted to leave. This was a key decision that families had to make. For the vast majority, it was an easy decision: They remained. However, a small minority decided to leave and start afresh in the UK. Although the wisdom of this decision was highly questionable, the need for self-validation has put them in an entrenched position. They have uprooted their families, moved to a strange country, and in many cases have taken poorly paid jobs. Yet however much in their hearts they may feel regret, they need to justify their life-changing decision by continuing to condemn the situation in Hong Kong and maintain that they have done the right thing.

So, what conclusions can we draw from all of this? The existence in the world of so many religious zealots, soccer fanatics, political party supporters, Cold War warriors and even Hong Kong exiles would indicate that Descartes' search for truth has a long way to go. The human need for self-validation is an undoubted barrier to truth. As long as we see the world through the prism of our own perceived realities, constructed around the need to justify ourselves by condemning those with different views, truth and harmony will remain distant goals. Greater self-awareness, honesty, empathy, tolerance and humility are key qualities if we are to make progress toward a less polarized world built on truth rather than self-justification.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.