Understanding the dynamics
of us versus them
source: polarisatie.nl
Polarisation
pr e v ie w
BART BRANDSMA
Radicalisation Awareness Network
pr e v ie w
source: polarisatie.nl
These parts of Bart Brandsma’s book ‘Polarisation; understanding the dynamics of us versus them’ are translated and made available by the Radicalisation
Awareness Network. So that practitioners, researchers and policy makers can
benefit from it. The complete English translation is expected in the second
half of 2017. The views expressed in this document are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the RAN Centre of Excellence, the
European Commission or any other institution.
Title
Polarisation; understanding the dynamics of us versus them
Original title
Polarisatie; Inzicht in de dynamiek van wij-zij denken
Author
Bart Brandsma
Design and graphics: Studio Bassa, Culemborg, The Netherlands
Cover: Dreamstime
Photo author: Suzanne Klaver, Culemborg, The Netherlands
© Bart Brandsma, Schoonrewoerd, The Netherlands, 2017
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photocopy,
microfilm, or any other means without written permission by the publisher.
understanding the dynamics
of us versus them
pr e v ie w
Polarisation
source: polarisatie.nl
BA RT B RA N D S M A
pr e v ie w
Contents
= part of this Preview source: polarisatie.nl
This book keeps to the middle Part I Polarisation: how it works 1
A New Approach 1.1 Insight i – Thought Construct 1.2 Insight ii – Fuel 1.3 Insight iii – Gut Feeling Dynamics Summary 2
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Five Roles Role 1 – The Pusher Role 2 – The Joiner Role 3 – The Silent Role 4 – The Bridge Builder Role 5 – The Scapegoat 3Summary Part II Conflict: polarisation’s little brother 4
4.1 4.2 4.3 A Correct Understanding Seven Phases Four Stages Interaction with Polarisation contents
5
pr e v ie w
5
5.1 5.2 Portrayal of Man
Difference or Similarity The Question of Guilt paralyses 6Summary Part III A new approach source: polarisatie.nl
7
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Social Cohesion & Dialogue Timing is Everything Four Game Changers Change of Target Group Change of Subject Change of Position Change of Tone 8
8.1 Mediative Speech and Mediative Behaviour But what is the issue?
9Summary 10
10.1
10.2
Urgency, Urgency, Urgency The Circle of Radicalisation A New Journalism Afterword References 6
contents
1 a new approach
11
pr e v ie w
source: polarisatie.nl
Part I
Polarisation:
how it
works
A new approach
pr e v ie w
1
source: polarisatie.nl
I
t might help, to start with, if we do not see polarisation
solely as a problem. Or, even better, if we do not immediately
label the phenomenon as a cause of discrimination, injustice
and violence in the world. Polarisation is more than this. Moreover, a one-sided focus on these serious social problems prevents
us from seeing what else the phenomenon entails.
To be able to discover this, a different, new and more fascinating approach is needed. In search of this I do not mean to avoid
the seriousness or consequences of polarisation. We all know only
too well that the phenomenon of polarisation sets countries and
government leaders against each other, that it can split apart entire
population groups, whether this is due to competing interests, a
religious dispute or simply because people’s skin colour differs.
Polarisation can easily escalate into violent dynamics, causing
people harm, sowing anguish, inciting terror and killing. We know
this and do not have to elucidate it here. A sound answer to polarisation is in itself a serious, urgent matter. But for this I need a new,
somewhat more light approach.
I want an approach that gives room to fathom polarisation, so that
the answers we formulate are actually effective. By first introducing
a little philosophical aloofness, I intend to provide polarisation
– us-them thinking – with a new conceptual framework that also
offers new opportunities. A framework that allows us to better
evaluate the circumstances at our juncture in time and our own role
in them. A framework that raises questions. How does polarisation
1 a new approach
13
pr e v ie w
work in the interplay between politician and citizen? What impact
does ‘us and them’ thinking have on the refugee crisis in which
Europe has been confronted with the migrant? What is the impact
of the us-them principle on the quality of our journalism? What
effect does polarisation have in our society on radicalised young
people, on the work of the police professional, on the viewpoint
a mayor adopts when tensions arise in disadvantaged areas of the
city? What does a teacher do if the class polarises into black-andwhite thinking and nuance keeps losing ground? Us-them thinking exists in society at micro, meso and macro level – the media
demonstrate this to us every day – and this makes it surprising that
up till now we have lacked a sound framework to fathom it out. A
framework of thought to not only simply describe the principles
and roles, but also the obstacles and opportunities, is missing.
source: polarisatie.nl
There are indeed useful books about a related phenomenon,
conflict. Extensive study on the question of how conflict works
has been conducted within a specific subject area to which we can
assign the collective name conflict studies. And you can then learn
the skills to deal with conflict in training courses, because as well
as the notion of ‘dealing with conflict’, we have ‘conflict management’. Based on what we know about the conflict phenomenon,
as a leader or manager, you can learn to play a role that is effective,
supported by scientific insights. In short, we have thought through
the principles of the conflict phenomenon and the psychology of
the conflict actors carefully and we learned to act on conflict.
The same cannot be said for polarisation. Polarisation is often
seen as a somewhat larger conflict that has spun out of control. We
combat it with methods that we also apply for conflicts (see Part
2). This results in many shortcomings. There is in fact a fundamental difference between the two. A conflict features parties that
are directly involved, problem owners, whom you can identify.
In the protracted conflict in Northern Ireland, referred to down
the years as ‘The Troubles’, practically all Belfast’s residents were
involved based on their religious identity, either as Catholic or as
14
part i polarisation: how it works
1 a new approach
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
Protestant. This is a conflict. They own the problem, on one side
or the other. Just like a midnight brawl in a pub, we always talk of
‘problem owners’ and so of conflict. Everyone with a black eye or
other physical injury is involved. The characteristic of a conflict is
that there are conflict actors who have chosen a position, because
they are participating, whether voluntarily or not. It is not hard to
recognise those involved. One wants to strike out, another tries to
make a quick compromise and a third tries to sidestep the issue:
the conflict avoider. But even the latter cannot deny it. He or she is
part of the rising tension; the problem ownership is uncontested.
This is fundamentally different from the polarisation phenomenon. In principle, polarisation – us-them thinking – always
involves a choice of whether or not to assume the position of problem owner. The making of the choice to join in is in itself a crucial
moment for ‘the actors’. Are we or are we not going to participate
in the black-and-white thinking and to what extent? Whether we
are talking about the polarisation of ‘Muslim versus non-Muslim’
that we observe worldwide, the confrontation in the United States
between ‘white police and the Afro-American section of the community’ or the clash between rich entrepreneurs and poor employees, people frequently have the choice of feeling part of something
or conversely choosing to stay outside. This is a characteristic
difference between conflict and polarisation.
In a conflict you can identify the conflict owners – whether they
want you to or not – and so you can also apply conflict management. It is different with polarisation because here the question
arises of who is playing the decisive role, who can or should be
addressed. Where does your management start when there is
polarisation? After every Daesh terror attack in Europe, Muslims
are again asked to dissociate themselves, while they see themselves neither as a Daesh sympathiser nor as an opponent. Finding
responsibilities, key players (read as problem owners) in polarisation is a tricky point.
15
pr e v ie w
This is a stumbling block in the development of polarisation
ma­nagement. In seriously polarising issues, there are always
people who want to act as spokesperson for large sections of the
population, but this in itself should be enough to make us suspicious. The polarisation phenomenon always features changing
players who interact on each other. Some are faithful to a chosen
role, while others are vague and elusive. And while in a conflict you
can clearly indicate which parties and interests are at stake, polarisation demonstrates a varying set of actors who in terms of interests sometimes behave entirely illogically. An analysis of interests
does not unconditionally explain people’s erratic behaviour or the
escalations we see in increasing polarisation. It is crystal clear that
other principles are at work. This explains to a degree our notable
powerlessness against polarisation.
source: polarisatie.nl
Polarisation is a phenomenon with its own dynamics and its own
principles, of which we only have a limited grasp. All kinds of
people play a role, stick their oar in, but when it comes down to it,
no one assumes responsibility. Who reinforced the polarisation of
Muslim versus non-Muslim? Was it Pope Francis? Was it President
Erdoğan of Turkey? Was it the 9/11 hijackers? Was it the editorial
staff of the Parisian magazine Charlie Hebdo? Was it ‘Western
journalism’? Is it the local ‘imam sowing hate’ or is it the populist
who plays on the extreme-right flanks of the political spectrum?
Was it Barack Obama, who speaks with a moderate tone, or is it his
successor who is continually seeking confrontation? Who is inciting this, or doing something about it? The players are just as active
as intangible. We can always step back from polarisation, avoid
a personal role in it or deny responsibility. This is a major reason
why no earlier attempt has been made to develop something as
complicated as practical polarisation management. That is where
we are. Where do we begin and with whom?
16
part i polarisation: how it works
Insight I – Thought Construct
pr e v ie w
1.1 1 a new approach
source: polarisatie.nl
At the beginning. To fathom polarisation we need to elaborate on
three fundamental insights. The first is that the leading role in
polarisation is claimed by a thought construct. It is all in the head.
Polarisation is us-them thinking and the thought construct consists of everything that can be imagined about this us and them. So
you cannot observe polarisation in your environment, it is always
abstract. It is about words, views and ideas, which is different from
a conflict.
In a conflict, such as the attack on the Bataclan Theatre in Paris,
you hear the chatter of Kalashnikovs, you see people running
away, while the attackers yell their ‘Allahu Akbar’. The polarisation involved here is perceptible all over the place, but not actually
observable. If we look behind the direct violence, there is finally
a thought construct, an us of ‘the free West’ against the them of
‘Daesh and the Caliphate’. Two abstract identities in conflict with
each other that want to rule each other out. A few months before
Bataclan there was the Daesh-Charlie polarisation, in which the
concepts of ‘the free word and democracy’ and ‘the Caliphate and
Sharia’ were set at odds. In the conflict that ranged over theatre
audiences, editorial staff and cartoonists, an old, existing polarisation, that of ‘Muslim against non-Muslim’, possibly framed as
faithful Muslims against kafirs or infidels, was capitalised on. Similar things happened in the polarisation ‘German against refugee’
after a series of assaults at Cologne Central Station on New Year’s
Eve 2016. This quickly developed into a concept of ‘civilised Germany with high opinions about the equality of man and woman’
against the ‘savage chancers of asylum seekers with outmoded
Islamic views about the subordination of women’. In each of the
cases above we can deduce that they are about concepts. The us
against the them, in abstracto.
Another example. Men and women exist; this is an observable
and biological fact. Polarisation only exists if we assign specific
characteristics to the opposite poles of man and woman. We can
17
pr e v ie w
set them sharply against each other by charging the identity of
the opposite poles with meanings on top of the neutral bio­­logic­
­al facts. What it means to be a woman or a man is determined
socially and culturally; the identities of both become charged.
Being a woman in the fashion world is different from being one in
politics. Being a woman in Zimbabwe is different from being one
in Sweden. And similarly, worldwide – again by way of example –
there are people from ‘the West’ and people from ‘the East’. This is
unmistakably the case. We can also document this for each individual by demanding to see people’s birth certificates. But polarisation
(the thought construct) begins where we know with great certainty
that one pole is very materialistic while the other is exceptionally
spiritual. One is individualistic and expressive, while their adversary is indirect, prefers to wait, is a ‘herd animal’.
In polarisation, there are always two identities that are set
against each other. They are obvious, are presented as facts. Men
against women, black against white, politicians against citizens.
The shift to polarisation is only made by charging these distinct­
ions with meanings that the identities could have. Men are then
for example active and good at technical things, women are passive and mainly out to have a good conversation. Black people are
oppressed and have a victim mentality and whites need to watch
out where their colonial past is concerned, the descendants of
oppressors. Politicians are accused of being the ‘elite who like the
taste of power’ as the citizen can suddenly be called the ‘man in
the street who knows what is really going on and who will not let
anyone pull the wool over his eyes’.
source: polarisatie.nl
With this first insight, it is important to see that inherently neutral
antitheses become charged with meaning. This could be a negative or indeed a positive charge, it makes no difference. In fact,
every charge reinforces the polarisation by confirming the two
poles, presented as opposed, in our minds. The remark ‘women
are good at multi-tasking’ (positive) is just as polarising as the
remark ‘women cannot reverse park’ (negative). In both cases, the
18
part i polarisation: how it works
1 a new approach
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
polarisation is reinforced: one identity (man) is put in contrast
against the other (woman), as an opposite pole. The result is that
the other’s otherness is focused on and the emphasis on identity is
made relevant.
This holds both bad and good news. The bad news is that we
cannot cope without polarisation. We make distinctions – we think
in terms of us versus them – and we have a strong tendency to hold
on to these distinctions. As I live in the countryside, I distinguish
myself from people with an ‘urban mentality’. This is reinforced
the more I think about it, the more I start to value my garden and
the meadows around me. And this is why an ex-smoker feels a
gulf between himself and people who do not have the sense to
give up that cigarette. We build on images of opposite poles, and
by assigning characteristics to the other, we also define who we
ourselves are. Polarisation is closely associated with making or
confirming one’s own identity. Polarisation is an identity creator
and we therefore need it. We keep doing it, incessantly.
But there is good news too, because in polarisation we are
looking at concepts, at ‘frames’ within which we think. We can
influence these, direct them and even manipulate them. Frames
are malleable to a certain extent. They can sometimes be altered,
broken down or even replaced completely. Sometimes it takes a
lot of searching, or another time it is obvious or even comes to you
without effort. The polarisation between the rivaling Dutch cities
of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, with by extension their football
teams Feijenoord and Ajax, evaporates if the national team has
to play a foreign one. Particularly if the opposition should be the
eternal rival and neighbour Germany. Also – and this is culturally
much more important than the football example – you can look at
the transformed man-woman distinction. In the first half of the
last century, this was a contradiction with a charge that was heavily
contested by the women’s movement. Women who married were
no longer allowed to work, they entered the twentieth century without voting rights, and their primary role in life was that of mother.
The contrast with the man, the breadwinner and head of the family,
19
pr e v ie w
was huge. In the polarisation that raged strongly particularly
through the feminist wave of the seventies, much was gained –
though by no means everything – to allow the man versus woman
frame to be altered. Even age-old contradictions – certainties about
identities – can crumble away. It is good news that polarisation is a
thought construct. We are not powerless.
source: polarisatie.nl
1.2 Insight II – Fuel
Polarisation needs fuel. It works like an open fire that cannot be
left unattended for too long. You need to keep coming back and
putting on another log. If you are too late, it is a big job to relight
the fire. If you stop supplying fuel, the polarisation collapses. It
diminishes in intensity, ultimately extinguishing it entirely.
A certain degree of us-them thinking exists between the Norwegians and the Lapps in the northernmost parts of Scandinavia. The
Norwegians know that the Lapps are a bad lot. They drink too
much alcohol and do not keep their promises. It is inherent in their
identity - Norwegians repeat time after time - as they think themselves more Lapp than Norwegian. With statements about the
Lapps’ identity, they pour fuel on the polarisation that has been
dragging on for so long. Lapps are opposed to Norwegians, and
the Lapps too know exactly why: the Norwegians just think themselves superior, want to impose rules on us that are not ours, and
when push comes to shove, you cannot trust them! Then they make
promises that they fail to keep. We do not in fact want to be called
Lapps, that is an insult, we are called Sami. Each of the statements
about the identities of the opposite poles – Sami or Norwegian
– supplies fuel for this ongoing issue.
But it is also possible in a short time frame. At one of my polarisation courses, I had arranged to train two groups on the same day.
The changeover was at midday around lunchtime. An excellent
lunch. The first group tucked into the ham and cheese sandwiches
20
part i polarisation: how it works
pole
pr e v ie w
Talk about
id ent it y
is the fuel
pole
source: polarisatie.nl
Fig. 1Field of tension
and left, after which the second group arrived. But there was not
enough food left for them. And then the polarisation started: the
afternoon group knew that the morning group was antisocial.
Someone concluded that they came from a department that was
inherently selfish. The afternoon group would never have entertained the idea of stuffing themselves full at someone else’s cost!
The identities of the two in this morning versus afternoon polarisation was fed with fuel effortlessly. The characteristic with which we
can recognise fuel is quickly revealed. It is the identity of the other
that is made central, and statements are made about this identity
(morning group, afternoon group, Sami or Norwegian). Positive,
negative or neutral; the pattern is the same, they are that and we are
this.
Refugees are opportunists, asylum seekers are testosterone
bombs, right-wing politicians are egotistic, left wing politics is
naive, Serbs are aggressive, Bosnians are crafty, Berbers are backward, Turks are not open, the police discriminate, politicians only
want to score, bankers are money-grubbers, Poles are profiteers,
Poles are good tradesmen, Obama is good, Trump is bad, Catholics
are hypocritical, Protestants are on the level. Around the Mediterranean, everyone is hospitable and easy-going, in Scandinavia
people are naturally depressive and it takes ages before you make
real contact with someone. None of these statements are true to
the identity of the other, but do, however, fuel a certain polarisation. Denials do exactly the same: refugees had no alternative but
to leave their home, asylum seekers are ordinary family people,
1 a new approach
21
pr e v ie w
right-wing politicians strive for their ideal of freedom and non-dependence, left-wing politicians feel their hearts quicken for their
fellow man, the police always act without prejudice… For every
negative statement a positive counter may be formulated, tying in
with how we might think about the other. However, for fueling the
phenomenon, this makes no difference. If the identity of the other
is central, linked to an assertion about the nature of that identity,
we are feeding polarisation; us-them thinking. ‘Homosexuals are
perverts’ is in this regard equivalent to ‘homosexuals are in fact
often good-natured and sympathetic’. Both statements supply fuel.
Well or ill intended, they are simple statements about the identity
of the other. This does not matter here.
source: polarisatie.nl
This last conclusion – I have often observed – only sinks in slowly.
I associate this fact with the third insight we need to weigh in order
to fathom the dynamic of polarisation. With fuel statements, the
suggestion is easily evoked that we are exchanging facts with each
other, that through agreeing or disagreeing with the statements
about identities we can elevate the debate to a higher level. Using
a sketch of the identity of the other – our opposite pole – we want
to share our knowledge about the other, we are making as strong
as possible an opening move in the discussion. And thus it would
seem that we are acting within the domain of reasonableness and
dialogue. This is an illusion. It is not the case with polarisation.
1.3 Insight III – Gut Feeling Dynamics
Polarisation is a dynamic of gut feeling. With increasing polarisation, the amount of conversational material – the debate and the
discussion – increases, while the level of reasonableness declines.
Polarisation is gut feeling dynamics through and through. The
philosopher would say that ‘Logos’ does not count, it is ‘Pathos’
that matters. This partly explains the powerlessness we experience.
Mayors, politicians, teachers, etc. would love to be able to restore
22
part i polarisation: how it works
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
the calm with a single, well-aimed word. No matter how well
picked their restraining words they do not land. They do not reach
the head. In most cases they are more likely to strike in the gut.
A good example of this is the murder case involving Marianne
Vaatstra, a young girl in Friesland (The Netherlands) who was
found raped and killed in May 1999. The culprit was unknown,
and due to this crime, polarisation was rife for years between the
local population and the residents of the nearby asylum-seekers’
centre. There was a firm conviction that someone from the centre had committed the crime. People fought about this for years;
the population wanted to ensure that the culprit(s) there were
not shielded any longer. The us-them thinking got the chance to
become well-rooted. Until years later, the real culprit was arrested.
The facts were undeniably established. DNA material proved that
the culprit was a white, local, middle-aged cattle farmer, living
a mile and a half from the scene of the crime. How strong does
evidence need to be? For people who had invested in their image
of the enemy for years, it was not strong enough. In the gut feeling
dynamics of polarisation, facts are not enough. Even today there
are people in Friesland who remain convinced of one thing: it was
an asylum-seeker who committed the murder.
This third insight has its consequences. Reasonableness only
provides a limited answer to polarisation. Exchanging knowledge
about the identity of the other, building up understanding of the
opposite pole’s viewpoints: it has a very restricted effect. Because
polarisation is just not reasonable. The gut’s fickleness has its own
influence and we are all exceptionally sensitive to it. This thinking
in terms of enemies and friends is stubborn and impervious to hard
evidence. And if the facts nevertheless demonstrate the opposite,
there is always the conspiracy theory.
The increasing number of conspiracy theories in classrooms for
example is a good indicator of polarisation. The conspiracy theory
is the escape route to allow you to be right and hold on to your view
when all the facts demonstrate the opposite. A conspiracy theory is
1 a new approach
23
pr e v ie w
needed to uphold that Marianne Vaatstra was murdered by a
refugee. This phenomenon is, for example, also present in the
Israel-Palestine polarisation. ‘The Jewish conspiracy’ is an old
familiar, through which we are supposedly being manipulated by
a global plot. And 9/11 must also have been a conspiracy, in which
America sacrificed its own citizens in order to create an image of
the enemy. The conspiracy theory is the escape for some young
people to hold on to the idea that all Muslims are peace-loving and
could never cause something like 9/11. Evil is sought elsewhere.
An ultimate attempt to hold on to a polarisation in which we can
continue to justify ourselves and our extreme images of the enemy.
source: polarisatie.nl
Summary
In a polarisation, opposite poles are defined: us against them. So
we are dealing here with a concept. One pole is set against the
other and charged with meaning. This involves us-them thinking.
So you cannot observe polarisation. It exists, but only in our mind.
This thinking can persist – gain a grip on us – as long as there
are people supplying fuel. Polarisation continuously needs fuel,
and this fuel consists of simple assertions about the nature of the
opposite pole’s identity. In its simplest form: we are right, they are
wrong. This whole thing results in gut feeling dynamics to which
everyone is susceptible. The gut is spoken to. A sensible of rational
rebuttal to polarisation rhetoric has limited effect.
24
part i polarisation: how it works
pr e v ie w
2 Five Roles
source: polarisatie.nl
T
o adopt our own position in polarisation and to ultimately be able to achieve a practical polarisation strategy
or polarisation management, we need to distinguish
five roles. This limited number of five roles is involved
in every existing polarisation. The choice of a role delivers advantages and disadvantages. A role delivers advantages, but always at a
price. The coherence of these five roles creates a compelling picture
of the dynamics – if you like the mechanism – of polarisation. It
is extremely ingenious in its operation and as an image, extremely
simple. By describing the five roles, I present a picture of the operation, pitfalls and finally also opportunities without branding one
role as right and the others wrong. Every role is right and wrong;
we have all ‘played’ them at one time or another. The description
below does not aim to qualify or disqualify the roles. It serves the
purpose of learning to recognise the operation, so we can choose a
role deliberately. Better than landing in one unwittingly.
2.1 Role 1 – The Pusher
We encounter the first role at each of the opposite poles. The
pusher is the one with the simple task of supplying fuel for
us-them thinking. He or she often does this with verve. President
Donald Trump is a pusher. In the Americans versus Mexicans
polarisation he says: ‘Mexicans are profiteers.’ And Geert Wilders
and Marine Le Pen are pushers. In the polarisation between Euro-
2 five roles
25
pr e v ie w
pusher
pusher
source: polarisatie.nl
Fig. 2The first role
peans and refugees, they say: ‘Refugees are testosterone bombs.’
‘They cannot integrate.’ Khalid El Bakraoui is posthumously a
pusher. In his testament, the suicide terrorist of the Brussels Maalbeek Station wrote about the polarisation of the West versus Daesh:
‘Atheists are decadent.’ Note here that these are very simple statements. Even of their kind – one-liners – these remarks are among
the simplest. The other is… They are…
But watch out: the pusher at one pole does this, the one at the
opposite pole does exactly the same. In the polarisation between
right and left, the pushers on the left (the ‘cosmopolitans)’ are
very certain of one thing. Right-wing voters are wrong. They
read the tabloids, fail to inform themselves properly, listen to the
rabble-rousers, are rather poorly educated anyway and in all their
egotism lack the open-mindedness needed to do the right things
for the future generations. In other words, they are hopeless cases.
According to the pusher, evil is always on the other side.
Pushers have a leading role. And it can be attractive to adopt this
role. It possesses one thing in particular: a (moral) self-righteousness. The other is 100 per cent wrong. The pusher is certain of his
own case, not 92 per cent or 98 per cent right. No, he is 100 per
26
part i polarisation: how it works
pr e v ie w
cent right. This certainty brings the pusher a lot of energy. He can
move mountains.
2 five roles
source: polarisatie.nl
This moral self-righteousness gives the confrontation the character of a holy war. On the right flank it is ‘Islamisation’ that must
be opposed. For the pushers on the left flank, the conflict about
discrimination or even racism is the issue. And it applies to both
sides: nuance diminishes, thinking in either entirely black or
entirely white terms strengthens one’s own position. This is why
pushers pay no heed to discussion or debate. They are interested
in presenting their own rightness, through repetition, and if at all
possible by formulating (new) fuel. The other is… Our identity is
opposite to their identity. We have nothing in common, and this is
exactly why everyone must choose. A pusher who allows himself
to listen to the other loses his role. We do not see him or her doing
this.
This comes with a price, sometimes even demanding a sacrifice. Whoever invests in the role of pusher becomes visible. This
is indeed the intention, but the gut feeling dynamics can also turn
against you. The politician Wilders pays for his fight with insecurity. He is threatened with death. Mandela was in jail for years. The
jihadist in Molenbeek in Brussels literally chose a dead end. At the
extreme poles there is often only one route left. Outwards, in an
even more extreme direction. The very characteristic of polarisation
that sets up the pusher, that gives him power – namely the fact that
this is about gut feeling dynamics – also makes things unpredictable. The tide can turn. One incident can cause your gut to make an
about-turn. Polarisation is not malleable, not for the pusher either.
The pusher plays his role with verve one moment, supplies fuel,
and the next has lost all control. In the polarisation between black
and white in the United States, which in incident after incident
concentrates on a conflict between the white officer and the black
suspect, no-one yet has a grip of the emotions. This could turn
against the white Trump, but just as easily against his predecessor
Obama, the country’s ‘black’ president.
27
pr e v ie w
The pusher’s psychology is very special. The moral self-righteousness drives, directs the efforts and supplies lots of energy. The fickleness of the polarisation dynamics makes his position unpredictable. And the most characteristic – ‘the only way is more extreme’
– makes him both vulnerable and powerful. Moderation is to lose
face. No one wants to be a vacillator, certainly not in a conflict that
may be considered as almost holy and thus demands the necessary
sacrifices. Nuance is not welcome.
source: polarisatie.nl
2.2
Role 2 – The Joiner
Pushers create a field of tension between two opposite poles. They
make a black-and-white statement and a choice is created within
that field of tension. The primary choice is not for one camp or the
other. The primary choice is to take part or not. The pusher tries to
build up polarisation pressure. And the more urgent they can make
their presentation of matters, the more pressure there is to choose
a party in this dichotomy. This is what the joiner ultimately does.
He chooses one camp in the field of tension between the poles.
pusher
pusher
joiner
Fig. 3
Pushers en joiners
28
part i polarisation: how it works
joiner
2 five roles
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
The joiner does not do this by endorsing the pusher’s viewpoints
all the way. The joiner chooses a camp, but continues to act within
the boundaries of the field of tension. He is not as extreme as the
pusher and often the joiner also addresses this. The pusher designates, the joiner endorses his vision ‘partly’. This is the role division.
We all know that one uncle who sets the cat among the pigeons
at the birthday party: ‘Well, about that Islam. I don’t fully agree
with Donald Trump, but we do need someone like him to tell it like
it is.’ The joiner chooses a camp, but is not a pusher himself. ‘That
strong man in the Philippines, Duterte, I don’t agree with him,
but he does have a point in the drugs issue,’ which is an excellent
example of the text you can expect from a joiner. The joiner can
choose the best from two sides. On the one hand, he is not so
extreme, he is always open to discussion, he will say. On the other,
it can never be said of him that he is naive. In the event of impending danger, he goes into action, chooses a side and gets his hands
dirty.
Joiners step outside the polarisation pressure. They have the
advantage that they enter a camp of sympathisers. They gain status
and raise a standard. These are psychological advantages for the
joiner. A disadvantage is that there is also an identifiable opposing camp, to which they have shown their colours. The choice has
been made and particularly in increasing polarisation it becomes
almost impossible to switch. In the heat of the battle this would
be called betrayal. In cooler moments of polarisation it is called
vacillation. As is the case with the pusher’s attitude and position,
it shows that the joiner is fundamentally on a one-way street. On
the way towards black-and-white thinking it is difficult to mode­
rate. One of the major hazards on this road is that the pusher goes
‘too far’ in the eyes of the joiners’ camp. This is why, in the first
instance, the joiner always distances himself from the pusher to an
extent, as if to show that he has not lost his power of independent
thought and judgement. And this is also why the pusher carefully
checks whether his viewpoint can or has to become a fraction more
29
pr e v ie w
extreme to encourage the polarisation. As no other, the pusher has
the talent to assess the climate or temperature among the joiners.
Right-wing populists such as Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen:
they shock their followers when they make an outspoken statement. Whether it is a ban on the burkini (counterpart of the bikini)
or the niqab, ‘sending the Muslims back to their own country’, or
statements about the ‘Islamic community’s criminal tendencies’,
more fuel is provided each time. After the initial jolt or disapproval,
the joiners’ camp is rapidly content to honour this latest outburst
too. In this way, we have taken yet another step towards more
intense polarisation between Muslim and non-Muslim. In the same
way, the polarisation between the established order and Wilders/Le
Pen is intensified by any comparison of them with Adolf Hitler. The
right-wrong scheme that is employed by the opposite poles in this
field of tension continually provides new fuel for the polarisation
that has already been building up for years.
source: polarisatie.nl
In human biology, we recognise the advantage of black-and-white
thinking. We have to distinguish between friend and foe. When
we do this, we increase our chances of survival. In this sense, the
joiner gives in to a biological reflex we all have. When danger
threatens, we want certainty, we prefer to be surrounded by sympathisers rather than stand alone between two evils.
Meanwhile of course there are joiners of all shapes and sizes.
Near the poles, we find the aspiring pusher. This figure is very busy
justifying his own rightness with facts and argument. Information
about the opposite pole’s identity must be negative, and is also
selected on this criterion. All information that supports his own
rightness is welcome. What typifies the environment of the joiner
who is close to the pole is the capacity to pick up echoes of his own
rightness. Joiners and pushers occupy ‘echo chambers’ as has been
observed by radicalisation experts. They listen selectively and pre­
ferably to their own camp’s pusher.
You can recognise the joiner’s exact position from his readiness to conduct discussion. The joiner who is close to the pole
30
part i polarisation: how it works
2.3 source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
is mainly interested in delivering a monologue. The joiner who
is a little more moderate wants and enters into discussion, with
the intention of being proved right. In this discussion, his own
rightness prevails, but ideas are still exchanged. The joiner who
wants to enter into debate is still a little nearer to the middle. The
difference between discussion and debate is that in a good debate
the parties listen to what is being said, sometimes slightly attuned
to one’s own viewpoint. It is only on reaching midway that there
is the promise of a different kind of conversation, the dialogue, in
which not all the viewpoints are central. In a real dialogue, a shared
question or dilemma is formulated. But this is something that will
not stand black-and-white thinking, and consequently does not
serve the interest of the joiners, never mind that of the pusher. It is
a type of conversation that requires other conversational partners.
This causes a third role to enter the picture.
Role 3 – The Silent
Between the poles – at a distance from the joiners – there is room
for a middle position. In this middle position, we find a group
of people who do not choose either side. Not black and not
white, but grey. Sometimes this can be explained out of indifference. Not everyone listens to the pushers’ words, not everyone
is struck by them, or has an interest in the game that has sufficient importance. The indifferent stay in the middle. But sometimes the opposite is the case here: it is in fact because of strong
involvement that people opt to stay in the middle. The issues that
are raised: for or against Brexit, for or against free trade, for or
against intervention in Korea, for or against the niqab ban, for or
against Fethullah Gülen? The person concerned is not indifferent
to these issues, but in fact because of an involvement where they
consider nuance and not indifference to be the main driver, this
person opts for the middle. Not ending up by chance in the middle, but deliberately.
2 five roles
31
pr e v ie w
pusher
pusher
joiner
joiner
source: polarisatie.nl
the silent
Fig. 4
Pushers, joiners and the silent
As well as the indifferent and the involved, there is also a motivation based on neutrality. For many, it is professionally mandatory
to stay in the middle. The official, the judge, the teacher, the police
officer, the mayor, the priest or minister. In one of these positions,
it is advisable to think twice before choosing one pole or the other.
The office demands a neutral, considered position.
In other words, the middle ground accommodates many positions that may be motivated based on many different backgrounds.
The fact is that in the middle there is a group that has made the primary choice not to participate in polarisation. It offers resistance
to the polarisation pressure. This is also the primary reason why
the pusher’s target group is exactly this middle. For pushers, the
opposite pole’s viewpoint is only of moderate interest. The greatest
importance for the pusher is seeking impact in the middle field.
This is where gains may be made. And gains are not necessarily
that the middle field must be won for his own camp. This would be
nice, but more important is that the middle chooses, for or against.
Everyone who does not choose black-and-white thinking is a thorn
in the pusher’s side. We are wrong to think that the opposite pole
is the target for the pusher. For the pusher, the opposite pole is the
32
part i polarisation: how it works
pr e v ie w
subject of conversation – sometimes ‘the enemy’ – while his actual
target group is the middle.
2 five roles
source: polarisatie.nl
The middle fielders’ shared characteristic is not their motivation.
This can vary dramatically. The characteristic they share is their
invisibility. They are quiet, for the simple reason that nuance, the
middle position, has no voice. A line of visibility runs from the
origin, underneath in the middle, towards the outside. The noise
becomes louder towards the two sides, gaining an audience the
further outwards we proceed. The middle is itself audience, mute
in the sense that it emits no sound. The joiners go up on to the
podium and become ever more visible the further outwards they
move. The pushers not only stand on that podium, they also step
into the spotlight, and gain that spot by exclaiming one-liners at
the right time, extreme enough to be noticed, but not so extreme
that joiners feel excluded by them. Getting polarisation to work for
you demands that you execute the right stunt on the line of visibility.
The line of visibility offers identity gain. Whoever shows colours enhances identity. Radical youths – on the right or left – do
better in popularity than the timid types in the class. And the more
the joiners and pushers invest in their identity, the more difficult
it becomes to combat or moderate them. On the outwards road,
polarisation always demands more. It is a dynamic that works so
ingeniously that the players themselves are often unaware of it.
This sometimes starts in a young person becoming radicalised
with the question where do I belong? With the terrorists, who crash
into two skyscrapers on behalf of their faith, or with the victims,
who allow themselves to be put together under the designation ‘we
citizens of the free West’. So with neither of them, and these young
people end up none the wiser. Once he or she dares to make the
jump to black-and-white thinking, this provides identity, reassurance, a camp of sympathisers. This applies to both directions in
this field of tension.
33
pr e v ie w
pusher
pusher
joiner
joiner
source: polarisatie.nl
the silent
Fig. 5
Pushers, joiners, the silent and the visibility line
Visibility is a major motivation for people. A strong identity is a
major condition for human welfare. This causes a number of forces
to assemble on what I call the visibility line. It can just as easily
provide clarity by calling it the identity line or the radicalisation line
in a different context. Or ultimately, the conversation line. From
dialogue, the conversational form in the middle, you separate from
each other via the debate and the discussion to the monologue,
the form we encounter at and around the poles. The line therefore
reflects our ability and inability to get the opposite poles to engage
in conversation with each other. This is what we would really like,
but it is not always opportune.
2.4
Role 4 – The Bridge Builder
I have outlined a field of tension with the first three roles. In every
polarisation a fourth figure then emerges. This is the player who
adopts a position above the parties. This is the bridge builder who
takes the view that something has to be done about polarisation.
34
part i polarisation: how it works
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
He oversees the extremes, sees deficiencies in the world view of
both poles. And precisely because of these deficiencies, the bridge
builder intervenes. In a number of cases, the bridge builder mainly
wants to organise dialogue. Reasonably, the parties ought to be
able to arrive at an interchange of viewpoints or visions. Surely it
must be possible to name the differences and to seek similarities?
Authorities or spokespersons from communities are asked to
participate in conversations. In the Netherlands, this could take the
form of dialogue tables; in Lebanon sooner the character of peace
negotiations. In Bosnia, I participated in a conference where bridge
builders were occupied trying to achieve reconciliation between
parties. In these cases, the dialogue – a conversation from person
to person, from pole to pole – is initiated as a medium primarily
intended to invoke polarisation.
The bridge builder employs various strategies. Sometimes his
antidote, his tool, is the ‘counter narrative’. The production of
these counter narratives is intended to induce pushers or joiners to
adopt a more moderate or different outlook. Where extreme right
patriots in France declare war on ‘profiteer refugees’, the bridge
builder will introduce a counter narrative to primarily demonstrate
bridge builder
pusher
pusher
joiner
joiner
the silent
Fig. 6
Pushers, joiners, the silent and the bridge builder
2 five roles
35
pr e v ie w
the humanity of the refugee, the rights of the child, or the inhuman misery on the Greek-Turkish border. And where the extreme
left refugee activist has no sympathy at all for the Frenchman who
feels threatened in his existence, the bridge builder will elucidate
the justifiable economic concerns of this counterpart. The bridge
builder believes in the production of positive counter narratives, in
order to seek balance, to attenuate the extremes.
source: polarisatie.nl
By so doing, the bridge builder does something that pleases the
pusher immensely. The bridge builder supplies fuel to the polarisation with the best of intentions. The organisation of dialogue
between the pushers, the provision of a podium to the opposite
poles (read as the confirmation of polarisation’s right to exist)
as well as the production of counter narratives supplies fuel. The
pushers tolerate the bridge builder because he gives them impetus.
This is exactly the reason why my trainees in Lebanon said that they
‘hate dialogue’. The pushers continually get their chance there; it is
not the middle that gets a turn. It is a major misconception of the
bridge builder to think that you can build a bridge from the middle
of a ravine. If the gulf is too deep, you start in mid air, without any
chance of closure. This is not a hopeful mission. Pushers tolerate
the bridge builder, but in the meantime are seldom interested in a
conversation with their opposite pole. Geert Wilders or Marine Le
Pen do not want a conversation with their counterpart. Jihadists
are not open to a conversation with secular thinkers. The pushers
expand their monologue.
Bridge builders supply fuel, pushers supply fuel, and another fuel
supplier is also involved. The media have a role as accelerator of
the polarisation process. Not out of malice, for it is now the common view that the media should show the contrasts in the social
game. The journalist’s professional motto is ‘for and against, hear
both sides’. This means that in journalism we give the podium
to pushers and joiners. The viewer, the reader, the listener – the
middle – may form an opinion based on this. The media thus acts
36
part i polarisation: how it works
source: polarisatie.nl
2.5 pr e v ie w
as a catalyst for polarisation. They roll out the visibility line every
day. A discussion programme about a burning question in the
studio with two guests is only interesting if we can identify the
extremes. It is then typical that only monologue and discussion are
organised. Debate is extremely rare; the time and money is lacking
for dialogue. My point here is to name the fuel suppliers, without
lapsing into right and wrong thinking: pushers supply fuel in all
consciousness; bridge builders do so with the best intentions; the
media are a catalyst for this interplay and serve, with their high
output, as leading supplier of fuel to polarisation.
Role 5 – The Scapegoat
The fifth role comes into play when polarisation increases excessively. The polarisation pressure can increase and decrease rapidly.
Black-and-white thinking can gain ground and lose it again. The
dynamics of polarisation are like the inhalation and exhalation of
the lungs. The large group of joiners on both sides increases or
decreases accordingly. When the polarisation pressure increases,
the middle shrinks and the joiners attract sympathisers. The blackand-white thinking can then reach a peak. Two camps are ranged
against each other. In this scenario, the pushers will carefully make
steps outwards on the visibility line. They want to stay on the edge,
standing in the spotlight. If this requires seeking a more extreme
viewpoint, this is what the pusher will do. A pusher is careful not to
disappear into the crowd. This is troublesome, because with excessive polarisation, the middle thins out and middle-fielders become
joiners. Joiners become pushers, while the pusher is obliged to
relinquish control.
Then the final scene comes into view that illustrates the situation
of, for example, a civil war. We recognise this in Rwanda from the
years when the Hutus and Tutsis ended up in genocide. The polarisation pressure increased to a maximum within a very short time.
After a government plane had crashed, a radio station claimed that
2 five roles
37
pr e v ie w
bridge builder
pusher
pusher
joiner
joiner
source: polarisatie.nl
the silent
Increasing
polarisation
pressure
pusher
pusher
scapegoat
joiner
joiner
the silent
Exclusion,
violence,
(civil) war
Fig. 7
Polarisation pressure, extreme polarisation and the scapegoat line
38
part i polarisation: how it works
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
one of the two opposite poles in a still barely-existent polarisation of Hutu versus Tutsi was responsible. That opposite pole was
branded a cockroach in broadcasts. An extremely precarious phase.
When comparisons are made to vermin any point in a polarisation,
the line of civilisation has already been crossed. We know how to
deal with cockroaches; we stamp them to death! In three days’ time
the country turned into a battlefield.
There were only two options. You were either a Hutu or a Tutsi.
In the blind rage the neutral position, an indifferent attitude or
even a nuanced standpoint becomes impossible. Civil war is the
last stage of polarisation and it is characterised by making the middle position untenable. With the invasion of a militia, no Rwandan
could find solace by saying: ‘I am neither a Hutu nor a Tutsi, leave
me in peace.’ The central position is then a no-go area, on pain of
death.
The fifth role is that of the scapegoat, whom we find exactly in the
middle. We can measure polarisation pressure based on the degree
to which the central position is still tolerated. There comes a point
when the tolerance is zero, but the scapegoat is already sought out
well before this. The scapegoat is found in the middle. Not at the
opposite pole. Because the opposite pole is the enemy, and this is a
vitally different role from that of the scapegoat. The opposite pole
is not the scapegoat. In fact, the term comes from the Bible story in
Leviticus 16, where the animal was symbolically laden with the sins
of an entire people and is exiled into the desert, purged.
And exactly because the scapegoat is sought in the middle, the
bridge builder is an excellent candidate for this role. The fact is
he was not entirely trusted even in peacetime. He was tolerated
as long as this still served the interests of the opposite poles. But
there is seldom a relationship of mutual trust. In the controversy
of Muslim versus non-Muslim I have seen that bridge builders are
often discredited. If a Muslim wants to play the bridge builder, he
must be careful not to be seen by his own people as a ‘traitor’, as
a ‘Bounty bar’, white inside, dark outside, while in the non-Mus-
2 five roles
39
pr e v ie w
lim camp he is tolerated, while also being weighed up. Are we not
dealing here with the wolf in sheep’s clothing? What are this man’s
intentions exactly? In my eyes, it is the fate of someone like Tariq
Ramadan, who promoted a European Islam and finally gained no
ground at all, not in France, not in the Netherlands, and ultimately
nowhere in Europe. But the bridge-building non-Muslim suffers
this fate too. All those who have made efforts to improve relations
have been subjected to innuendo. Mayors with the motto ‘to try
to keep it all together’ are often accused of being naive. Where is
the decisive intervention? Having a cup of tea with the enemy and
talking about dialogue is denying the danger of Islam. This type of
insinuation is just as basic as it is effective. And once the tension
increases enough, it is these bridge builders who succumb first, as
scapegoat.
source: polarisatie.nl
The middle is the danger zone. In this zone you encounter various
professionals whom I will address in more detail later on. A mayor
has, of course, a role to develop in the middle, above the parties,
independently. However heated the emotions become, we expect
the mayor not to allow himself to be led by emotion or opportunism. In the job description of mayors the capacity to build bridges
is top of the list of required competencies. That he is also a candidate for the role of scapegoat is unstated, but is familiar to me,
from the training of mayors. After the attacks in Paris and Brussels,
Philippe Moureaux, the former mayor of the Brussels municipality of Molenbeek, was treated as a scapegoat. He had neglected
the security priorities for years in his policy. Resolute action was
absent, in the eyes of many. The guilty party had to be found. But of
course the police had failed too. And thus we had a second professional candidate for the role of scapegoat in view. With increasing
tension, the police become a suspect party. In polarisation, the
police themselves often become the target of aggression. Then it
is not the supporters of the opposition who are targeted by hooligans. It is men and women in uniform who have to suffer. This
same fate overcomes the teacher in a polarised school climate,
40
part i polarisation: how it works
2 five roles
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
who with patient attempts to achieve reasonableness, ultimately
fails to reach the pupils’ hearts. They want a different solution,
rather a radical note than a prudent one. The teacher’s attempts to
build bridges are indeed noticed, but are ultimately seen as suspect
by both camps. And the journalist is also a figure who can do no
right, who even if he can still count on any goodwill, sometimes
loses it on a whim. At demonstrations they are not always welcome
and sometimes even suffer blows. The scapegoat provides a safety
valve for guilt and anger. People want to be heard, but in a strongly
polarised climate, the messenger here must present what the pushers and joiners want. And if the journalist as a true bridge builder
also starts to use a weighing scale – to weigh the words, criticise
them or even contradict them – then the messenger becomes
viewed as the emissary of the foe. And he can count on having to
share the time-honoured fate of the scapegoat.
41
pr e v ie w
3Summary
source: polarisatie.nl
I
t is a compulsive image. In an interplay between the limited
number of five roles, polarisation gains its own dynamics,
which would only seem able to move in one direction. The
suppliers of fuel do their work effectively, while even the most
noble intentions to found peace unintentionally deliver reinforcing
effects. Who wanted war in the Balkans? Few. Who contributed
to it without actively instigating it? Many. Who wants the gulf
between Muslim and non-Muslim to deepen or widen? Few. Who
contributes to it? At the moment countlessly many – certainly if we
count the input from social media, where people seldom express
their subtle discontent and far oftener their unvarnished, offensive
opinion. This dynamic – polarisation – is characterised by powerlessness. The monster does what it wants, leads its own life.
The fact that we are dealing here with abstractions, us-them
thinking, contributes to the elusiveness of the phenomenon.
Images are cherished in silence, sometimes for years, to feed the
us-them thinking at the appropriate time. Many generations after
a war, we still cling to the antithesis of right and wrong, friend
and foe. It is a compulsive interplay between memories, thoughts,
conversations, debates, choice of words and attitude. There is no
simple antidote available. To stick with this comparison, it is a
multi-headed monster that has to be kept on a very tight leash.
With my sketch of the dynamics, an initial, necessary step has
been taken. By choosing a framework of thought that describes
the roles, by identifying the basic drivers and social laws, we can
42
part i polarisation: how it works
3 summary
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
learn to make a focused choice of a standpoint that depolarises.
This is not to say that I want to propose my naive optimism as a
solution. This would confound better judgement. In my training
practice I have seen all too clearly that the dynamics of polarisation
are too obstinate for this and have too fundamental an effect on
our society. But before we switch from the analysis of how polarisation works to the question of how we can depolarise – how we
can develop something like a polarisation strategy – I first want to
go two steps deeper to expose our hidden assumptions. What are
the dynamics of polarisation’s little brother, conflict? And what
actually is our portrayal of mankind and human nature in relation
to conflict and polarisation? Two essential questions to which
answers are needed before we look for remedies.
43
pr e v ie w
7.2 - 7.6
source: polarisatie.nl
Part III
7.2 Four Game Changers
pr e v ie w
source: polarisatie.nl
As well as sound knowledge of and practical experience in using
the medium of dialogue, an adequate approach to polarisation
demands dealing consciously with four benchmarks. These are,
emphatically, the four crucial factors that define the game’s conditions. Working with this set of four can entirely overturn our
approach to conflict and polarisation. These are starting points for
a polarisation strategy; four game changers.
1
2
3
4
Change of target group.
Change of subject.
Change of position.
Change of tone.
7.3 Change of Target Group
To further polarisation, the pusher has the middle, the silent, in his
sights. Polarisation increases as the middle decreases in size. The
pusher’s opponent is indeed the opposite pole, but the pusher’s
target group is not at the other side, at this opposite pole. This is
a misapprehension. The pusher’s target group is the middle; this
is sensitive to polarisation pressure. There is where gains are to be
made.
We can observe this in Daesh’s attitude for example. Their terror
acts on the model’s operation and dynamics. To polarise, you can
strike your opponent; this is for example Charlie Hebdomadaire
(who stands as symbol of the western free word), and also the
Jewish Museum in Brussels (that stands for the enemy Israel). Still
more effective is to strike the middle group. This was the attack
on Bataclan, the theatre where ordinary visitors were out for the
evening to attend a concert. This middle was also struck by killing
ordinary outdoor café-goers in the streets of Paris, or a few months
82
part iii a new approach
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
later ordinary passengers in the Brussels Metro or at Zaventem
Airport. The attack on the Christmas market in Berlin, on a bridge
in London, a shopping street in Stockholm… The most effective
way to polarise is to force the choice of black or white on people in
the middle. Striking at people who are unknown, but who are just
like you and me, elevates the polarisation pressure. A bloody attack
increases this pressure the most.
Polarisation takes place via the middle, while depolarisation
does exactly the same. Meticulous polarisation strategy demands a
correct approach to the middle and relinquishment of the poles as
focus. Shift the focus to a different target group; make the middle
your investment area. This is the first of the four game changers.
No longer serve the pushers.
We are inclined to contest the poles. When we hear nuance-free
one-liners, and this is what the pushers are good at, we prefer to
combat these. They demand our attention. Just like when, in a
problem area, the police can without difficulty make a top ten or
even a top 25 of names of people who cause the unrest. They are
known in the area and to the authorities. In some areas it is two
gangs who are in conflict, and the leaders are known by name. Yet
it is dangerous to give all the attention to these pushers with their
circle of joiners. The forces that must be mobilised are present in
the middle. Depolarisation is only possible by changing the target
group. You actually polarise by paying attention to the poles. You
can achieve depolarisation by investing in the middle.
A nice example. In the Dutch city of Utrecht, the police, in
cooperation with the municipality, employ what they call the Allies
Method. This method’s developer, Rachid Habchi, employed by the
National Police, emphatically targets reinforcing the silent. In his
networks in one of the four larger districts in the city, he carefully
recruited the right people, and every two months he gathers his
networks for a meal together. They discuss security in the district,
the issues, the tensions; they are prepared for polarisation. They
are not the pushers, the ones who join him at the table.
7 social cohesion & dialogue
83
pr e v ie w
In Habchi’s philosophy there are three types who normally
volunteer to promote peace. These role models put themselves
forward he says. Figures who ought to inspire the youth to exhibit
good behaviour. These are the people with an affinity with communities in the district, who have made it themselves. They have
influence. But in Habchi’s experience, these are also the people
who are not there when you need them, when there are disturbances. When the tension in the district rises, these figures have
no impact. They do not, or no longer come from the district,
have various viewpoints that are possibly still relevant, but they
do not come from or are no longer in the middle, states Habchi.
You also have so called key figures, in whom major investment
is made by many empowerment workers. They are sometimes
the leader of the mosque, or a committee member from a community centre, or even a known activist or member of a trade
union. They could also be a gang leader. These key figures have
an interest and with increasing polarisation will always take their
own interests into account. This makes them less dependable
for Habchi’s purposes. He wants real allies. Who can you rely on
if, for example, there is an attack, and the polarisation of Muslim versus non-Muslim escalates? Then you need to recruit your
neighbours who are influential, but who are also in the middle,
and moreover serve the right interests. These are your allies. With
years of experience, Habchi knows the right people to assemble,
who serve one common goal: ‘security in the neighbourhood and
future for the children’. The networks are built up in peacetime,
when there is little tension, and go into action if polarisation
threatens. Such allies could be a key figure, but also mothers with
influence on the street, teachers with impact at school, a trainer
at a sports club, a shopkeeper; it could actually be anyone. The
characteristic of this method is that the middle is reinforced; the
group meets regularly. The Ally Method is being rolled out by the
National Police in other municipalities in the Netherlands. You
build up the power to depolarise with this method in peacetime,
not during the incident itself, not once the escalation phase is just
source: polarisatie.nl
84
part iii a new approach
7.4 pr e v ie w
been passed. Then you are far too late. The social cohesion exists
in the middle. This is the target group.
Change of Subject
7 social cohesion & dialogue
source: polarisatie.nl
You achieve polarisation by putting forward the identities of the
opposite poles as the most important subject of conversation.
Depolarisation means radically stepping away from this. The
subject in the district in Utrecht is not whether ‘the loitering youth
are a bad lot’, or ‘Muslims need to bugger off ’ or even ‘white residents are egoistic’. The right choice here is the subject of security.
A subject that binds has been chosen, and it is disagreeable to
pushers. The pusher loves to point out evil. The subject of security
is an issue, and not a viewpoint that provokes discussion. Depolarisation means keeping yourself well away from this. What are
the possibilities in our district to give our children a future, what
can we do to feel safe? What cooperation with the municipality is
needed? What cooperation is needed with the police? Who is putting obstacles in the way of achieving these aims and how can we
clear the obstacles out of the way? Note that these are questions. To
make dilemmas and issues central is essentially a different thing.
The questions do not centre on identity, they centre conversely on
loyalty. How can we reinforce the connections we need to achieve
our common goals?
It seems simple, but it is not. The rhetoric of national polarisations thwarts local progress. An example. In a regional town, a
number of people in a care home want to invite asylum seekers and
cook for them. The idea is to get acquainted. Here, the open question is can we get to know each other? This is a thorn in the pushers’ side. National politicians say that this cannot be the intention.
Who will guarantee the safety of ‘our oldies’? This is how their
rhetoric sounds. The stranger’s identity is effectively placed against
that of the native. Space for a gesture of loyalty works to depolarise,
and in this case the counter-move – made much of in the media –
85
pr e v ie w
was very effective. The project was finally called off in this form.
The pusher polarises by focussing on identity, while the opposite
strategy focuses on loyalties with the ambition to depolarise.
source: polarisatie.nl
In every incident, in every conflict, you find two dimensions, the
relationship and the issue. The relationship that may be or may
become damaged, and the substantive issue that is involved. Whoever invests in a conversation about the other’s identity therefore
immediately threatens the relationship. This could be deliberate;
this is the pusher’s intention. It could equally be with the best
intentions, the bridge builder’s blind spot. Whoever invests in the
right question or issue depolarises and makes it possible to bind
people together around a well-chosen issue. Although it is often a
difficult task to reduce the incident or cause to a discussable question. If this works it creates cohesion. A shared approach, action
rather than words, can make the difference, certainly in neighborhoods.
7.5 Change of Position
We know that the bridge builder positions himself above the parties. Mayors often have this role. The bridge builder’s role keeps
recurring in the mayor’s job. The mayor must be able to separate
parties and interests and bring them together. With polarisation,
this strategy sometimes fails. The bridge builder is not trusted,
whether he has a formal position or not. The pushers tolerate the
bridge builder, but label them as ‘not one of us’. The attempts to
entice the bridge builder to nonetheless adopt a position, and every
mayor recognises this, are sometimes transparent and sometimes
downright crafty. A minor slip of the tongue is already enough
to reveal partiality. It is a slippery slope on which the pushers
themselves stand firmly, while the mayor is sliding around. With
polarisation, the bridge-building mayor is often taken hostage by
pushers. And as long as they are able to stick to their guns with the
86
part iii a new approach
pr e v ie w
right one-liners, they have a comfortable position with sufficient
visibility. An excess of attention to the pushers here can be costly.
Changing the subject, the target group or one’s own position is a
vital strategic choice.
source: polarisatie.nl
The debate about the coming of or the existing nuisance from for
example a travellers’ camp or asylum seekers’ centre demands
a listening attitude from the mayor, in the middle. Adopting a
position, not above the parties, but in the exact middle, with the
target group that is relevant, the district or the city itself, and then
not only with the self-proclaimed leaders or pushers is crucial.
Knowing the middle, listening to the middle, forming part of the
middle and giving the middle a voice are not the same as building
a bridge between the poles; this is a radical change of position.
Hearing nuance, knowing how to recruit the middle, changing the
subject of a debate about the identity of caravan dwellers or asylum
seekers (fuel) to questions of security in the district or the involvement of police at the correct times of the night. Questions about
cooperation between neighbourhood, police and municipality are
ultimately questions of loyalty.
The three benchmarks – target group, subject and position – interact and come nicely to the fore in the mayor’s role. But they also
apply to the teacher in the class, to the officer on the street. In
the incident that was mentioned earlier with Mitch Henriquez, a
coloured man who met a tragic end in a confrontation with the
police, it was the mayor of The Hague’s turn to make an appearance. He made a statement soon after the incident. He could, he
said, vouch for the integrity of the police, of his police. This supplied fuel unintentionally. This same mayor has the job to declare
his interest in and for the district. He cannot be for or against the
police; he must position himself in the middle, without any semblance of judgement or prejudice. Not neutral, suspended above
the parties, somewhere between the poles. No, in the middle, with
the interests of the silent in view: a neighbourhood that has con-
7 social cohesion & dialogue
87
pr e v ie w
tended with a field of tension that has lingered for several years.
People want to be listened to. Depolarisation here means recruiting
the right people, choosing the right subject, choosing the middle position and listening. Expressing an opinion pushes people
towards the poles; listening draws people into the middle, but then
you must already be in the middle yourself.
source: polarisatie.nl
I came across a nice example of this in the city of Amsterdam.
When a demonstration by Pegida was announced there, to protest
against the refugee policy in the city, polarisation rapidly loomed
up. Antifa, an anti-fascist group, wanted a counter-demonstration
on the same day. In the middle, the police had the rewarding task
of keeping the two camps apart. From their neutral role, the police
are always in the middle and they are compromised as soon as they
lean too far towards one pole or indeed the other. It is a professional characteristic of the police to operate from the middle.
But this also makes them the first candidate to occupy the role of
scapegoat. Both Pegida and Antifa are ready to paint the government as biased, based on the refugees according to one and being
too tolerant of racists according to the other.
The mayor then demonstrated a nice piece of polarisation
strategy. Prior to the demonstration, he expressed himself precisely about the tolerance for the demonstrators and about his own
position. I summarise his points here: ‘We Amsterdam people
consider the right to demonstrate almost sacred. The police make
every effort to allow you to exercise the right to freedom of speech.
We want this to proceed in a spirit of cooperation and have laid
down the rules with respect to insulting or offending particular
sections of the population.’ Mayor Eberhard van der Laan speaks
from the middle (we Amsterdam people), he changes the subject
from ‘refugees’ (yes or no) to the right question, that of freedom of
expression without insults, and in this way addresses not only the
pushers, but the entire city of Amsterdam and its police force. The
cards have been shuffled. The tone has been moderated. And this
brings me to the last point, possibly the most difficult.
88
part iii a new approach
Change the Tone
pr e v ie w
7.6 source: polarisatie.nl
Whoever wants to depolarise must not moralise. Everyone has
an opinion, has ideas on things, finds certain attitudes or views
make their toes curl. Sometimes this is at daggers drawn. A pupil
in the class who blandly announces that Bilal Hadfi, one of the
Paris attackers, is a hero, can enrage the teacher. We ourselves have
an opinion and are affected. This is exactly what teachers are up
against today. The teacher is then inclined to choose between two
roles and to change, possibly that of the bridge builder, seeking
reasonable insights, common ground. Where are the opportunities
for mediation? Or does he let himself be tempted into the role of
pusher and teach the pupil, here the opposer, a firm lesson? At that
point he possibly has right on his side, but the chance that he also
gains from it is minimal. The probability here is that polarisation
makes a significant gain.
This is the field of tension for many teachers. In the bridge
builder’s role, the teacher’s position is weighed up carefully by the
class. Where does he really stand? In this discussion, do you support Israel or the Palestinians? It is a trap for the bridge builder to
hover above the parties, independent, recognising the opposition
created by the pushers. Finally the pushers define the terms, the
subject and the tone, and the bridge builder as mediator is delivered into the space that is granted to him in the matter. At the same
time, the role of pusher is associated with the great danger that
we, with verve and conviction, contribute our own moral rightness
and that we are drawn along, reinforce the polarisation and end up
re­presenting one of the opposite poles in the us-them thinking.
This is already the case as soon as we pronounce our opinions.
A different tone and a different route proceed once again through
the middle. The patience to pose questions from the middle,
indeed to seek the right questions. Not by entering back into a
discussion about Bilal Hadfi’s identity: was he a bad lot or not?
But by asking the direct question of what this pupil recognises of
7 social cohesion & dialogue
89
pr e v ie w
himself in Bilal Hadfi? But watch out: there is a subtle difference
here between asking a question and calling someone to account.
And exactly here, the tone comes into the picture. The tone must
be one of real interest, a recognition of the other, a tone that is
soft, non-judgemental, not in the second instance either. However
subtle the difference may be between asking a sincere question and
one which tends towards seeking justification, the person who is
asked will immediately sense this subtle difference. In one case,
everything is possible, while in the other, we achieve nothing.
Nuance only gets a chance after actually recognising the other’s
position. This is not something you can feign, though it is something you can practise. I call it mediative speech and it demands
mediative behaviour. Every teacher, every police officer, every
mayor, and I could name many other professions, must have this
skill.
source: polarisatie.nl
The temptation to bring in our own case is great. We are trained
in discussion, in the formulation of positions. Radio, television, a
paper, Twitter: they offer opinions. It appears to be one of the most
important qualities to have. The presentation of a strong opinion,
the development of a critical attitude. We are generally less well
schooled in the asking of questions. This is however the philosopher’s core business, but he does not always make a good job
of it outside intellectual academic practice either. This is because
mediative behaviour demands not only a way with words, intelligence and intellectual capacity. It demands an attitude in which
the sincere question is considered, followed with – equally crucial
– a sincere consequence. After posing questions, we must always
be ready to listen. And here too there is often a lack. Who is sufficiently trained and sufficiently able to listen in such a way that the
other feels recognition? Because being recognised is not the same
as getting your own way. Whoever tries to listen and is already busy
seeking the right follow-up question or retort has got it wrong.
Whoever feels their toes curl and half-listens also fails. To become
skilled in mediative speech and behaviour is a critical success
90
part iii a new approach
source: polarisatie.nl
pr e v ie w
factor in the ability to depolarise. This ought to be a basic skill for
people in charge. But as already stated, it is not a trick; alongside
mediative speech, mediative behaviour is a necessary condition.
7 social cohesion & dialogue
91
Bart Brandsma (1967) is a philosopher,
trainer and consultant. After his study
of social and political philosophy,
he worked as a journalist (press)
and documentary maker (public
broadcasting) and previously published
the book Truth and Truthfulness: the
Difference between Muslim and nonMuslim Thought (2006), for which he
was nominated for the Socrates Award,
a Dutch prize for the most accessible
philosophy book.
In his practice as a consultant, he trains internationally with
professionals who in their field of work are confronted with
polarisation, with us-them thinking. Police professionals, mayors,
public prosecutors, social and youth workers, journalists, politicians,
priests, radicalisation experts and people from many other
professions have attended his training courses and workshops. An
overview of his work may be found at www.polarisatie.nl/eng-home-1,
a platform that has been developed to enable professionals to find
adequate answers to us-them thinking within their own field of work.
Us against them
Women against men, Muslims versus non-Muslims, Hutus against Tutsis, the
West against Daesh, citizens against politicians, nativists versus cosmopolitans,
the country versus the city, for or against abortion, left against right, the Yes or
No camp in a referendum, Kurds against Turks, the people against the elite…
Presenting a summary of polarisations – forms of us-them thinking – is easy. There
is an infinite list of variations of this phenomenon. But the dynamics of polarisation
are not variable. These are the same always and everywhere, for each of the
examples. They are universal.
What are the dynamics of polarisation? Can we gain insight into the operation
and fixed patterns related to black-and-white thinking? What roles do we play?
And what opportunities do we have to intervene? This book teaches how our
portrayal of Man plays tricks on us, what our opportunities are to create a strategy
of depolarisation, and how this phenomenon of polarisation relates to its ‘little
brother’; conflict. It gives highly-accessible insight into the possibilities and
limitations of the use of dialogue and it offers four crucial benchmarks we need to
combat polarisation.
We badly need a new approach to polarisation. This book enables the reader to
overturn ideas about polarisation and to gain practical advantages from this right
away. It is most of all a practical book that, besides insight, offers the professional
the prospect of a strategy and a practical grip on the issue.
BB IN MEDIA