Course:IGS585/OK2019WT2/SpeakerGregGarrard2
Greg Garrard - UBC Okanagan Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies
To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.
If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.
Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.
Name of Reflection AuthorThis is a reflection on the presentation by the guest speaker. Name of Commenting AuthorThis is a reflection the reflection of the author above. |
The following table are the pairings for commenting on each other's reflections. These pairings are unique for each reflection.
| Nicole Bamber | Aditya Shingvi Chandrakanth | Maria Correia | Madeline Donald | Stephenie Hendricks |
| Ian Turner | Amarpreet Kaur | Nadia Mahmoudi | Jeffery Nishima-Miller | Ariele Parker |
Ian Turner
Over the past two classes we’ve had with Dr. Garrard I’ve been particularly struck by the discussions of increasing political polarization around climate change. Communicating around differences in political ideology is a topic we discussed in depth, and one that was also used in the paper my group presented for the class as well. A key solution that has been proposed to communicate across these divides is the reframing of the issues in such a way that may reverberate more with people from other ideologies.
However, as we also heard during class, interpretations of climate issues according to political ideology outweighs interpretations according to all other kinds of personal ideology. As a result, a lack of consensus across political divides leads to constant flip-flopping on climate policy as administration changes occur over the relative short term.
The seemingly obvious solution to this, then, would be to address political polarization in such a way that climate policy may become less polarizing, facilitating action. However, I feel like this is much easier said than done, because I believe that, in the polarized political climate in which we live, political ideology has itself become a component of personal identity. The paper we presented in class asked survey respondents to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans; to vote in a US Primary Election, you have to first register as a member of that party; and, especially given how different media sources operate, it is increasingly easy to fall into an echo chamber where your political beliefs will be parroted back at you by like-minded people, further cementing political ideology as a component of personal identity.
But, as we’ve read, fruitful discussion around climate issues cannot come in the form of attacks on identity. So, if political polarization must be addressed, but it cannot be addressed in a way that attacks personal identity, but political ideology has become a matter of personal identity, how then can political polarization be addressed? Or, at very least, how do we break this chain? How do we dispel thoughts of “I may agree with this person, but I’m not going to work with them simply because they are a liberal/conservative/republican/democrat/the opposite of what I am”, without suggesting they should stop thinking of themselves and others the way they are?
Nicole Bamber
Ian,
I agree with the point you made that it should be as simple as reducing polarization around climate policy, but with the way our society is today, it is definitely easier said than done. Polarization has become a positive feedback loop, where it leads to mistrust of the “other” sided, which leads to further separation between the “sides”. It is a shame that our society has gone so far in this direction, when I believe that, in general, everyone on all sides of this debate wants the same things. To address your questions of how to break down these barriers between people, I have a suggestion. At a conference I attended about food sustainability, one of the presenters made us do an exercise where we all stated things we wanted in our food systems. By the end, she distilled all of our desires down into a set of common goals (i.e. healthy, ethically produced, sustainable), even though some of the original ideas were opposing (i.e. animal production vs. plant-based). Of course an exercise like this requires willing participants, but it may be one way to reduce polarization.
Jeff Nishima-Miller
As discussed in this week’s class with Dr. Garrard, climate change is a wicked problem entrenched within contemporary political polarization. With polarization it is evident that global solutions to climate change will continue to be ineffective. Due to the overwhelming thought of this ‘wicked problem’, I prefer to think of local solutions- as they offer somewhat attainable goals and tangible results.
Building on this, I’m reminded of past discussions I have had on climate change. When speaking to skeptics, I have used arguments for encouraging climate change mitigation by emphasizing risk assessment (i.e. identifying and analyzing potential future events which may impact individuals). Here, I tried to give examples of scientific facts, and then explain what could go wrong. For example, the risk of dwindling steelhead populations has always been a favourite. Looking through the lens of political polarization, it is not surprising that these conversations were often circular.
When conversations surrounding the assessment of risk are ineffective, emphasizing the management of risk (minimizing, monitoring, or controlling the probability or impact of future events) could offer a pathway to agreement or common understanding. I believe conversations about the management of risk could be more effective because they move away from ‘climate change’- as an idea that is believed or not and therefore politically contentious, to mitigating or adapting to undesirable environmental impacts (whether or not it related to a changing climate). A good example of this taken from class is the State of Florida, where the population has a close to even divide between democrats and republicans. Here, conversations are not framed around climate change, but instead environmental issues (i.e. floods), which pull together non-polarizing values (i.e. flood mitigation to protect homes, etc.).
Florida’s website for the Division of Emergency Management explains that their flood mitigation plan includes soil stabilization (increasing the carbon sequestration capacity of the soil (i.e. mitigation)), structure elevation, community flood mitigation projects, and localized flood control projects (all of which contribute to community resilience and risk mitigation in relation to climate change (i.e. adaptation)). Interestingly, these can be seen as positive advancements in addressing climate change, without directly targeting climate change itself.
In conclusion, this week’s readings and class highlighted political polarizations limits on productive conversations regarding climate change. By changing how issues are framed, we are able to move away from unproductive conversations embedded in different value systems, to tangible solutions which have positive outcomes. As political polarization continues, it will become ever more important to find shared value systems with people of conflicting views.
Madeline Donald
The way that Jeff cites the example here of the locally focused work being done in Florida is interesting for me. My first instinct is to waggle my finger at the use of the words "democrats and republicans," for these are words that identify humans with their voting habits. It is an identification as seemingly benign as referring to someone as a "runner" and is implied as a short hand for "someone who (typically) votes for the republican/democratic candidate." This is a habit differentiating process. We never refer to anyone as "eater", because we all eat, and if someone is called a "drinker", one does not assume the drinking of water. Not all of us run habitually and some people are therefore identified, or identify themselves, as "runners". Using the identifiers Democrats and Republicans though is not as benign as "runner", because there is a bipartisan system underlying a high-strung cultural tension that is reinforced by identifying folks with their voting habits, making those habits core to being, as opposed to treating voting as it is, an activity over which we have, in principle, the same amount of control at the point of voting as we do at the point of, "should I go for a run?" That said, the example Jeff provides it's a perfect identification of a localization of climate change discourse that depoliticizes and itself provides a way around, if not out of, the polarization so often present. Hopefully more such examples will be available in the near future.
Madeline Donald
If two mirrors are placed in front of one another the reflections of anything subsequently placed in between them will be non-sequential. Simultaneously there is a reflection, a reflection of said reflection, a reflection of the reflection of said reflection, ad infinitum. Which of these comes first will always be known only situationally, from the perspective of a particular observer.
So too is the nature of critical reflection on classroom topics. I wrote in response to Jeff's reflection before constructing my own. That paragraph (above) reflects thinking about nouns and verbs and labels I have been doing deliberately over the course of many months and less intentionally for a number of years. So, whether what I wrote is a reflection on what Jeff wrote before me, or my way of eking out an opportunity to insert those thoughts in to this space, or both, I cannot know. I see this interdisciplinary space as an opportunity to bring the mirrors we carry with us into the proximity of mirrors carried by others. All such mirrors having reflected different objects and series of infinite images in the past, we place them at angles, oriented in such a way that we find ourselves surprised. Hopefully. For surprise itself cements ideas, however rudimentary, for further development.
As a result of my interest in parts of speech and their unspoken functions a la the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as well as the role that metaphor plays in construction our worlds, the book "Metaphors We Live By" was recommend to me. It being a rather dry read I have been chipping only slowly at it for some months now. Having never consciously heard of either the book or the authors before, since beginning to read I have seen it or them cited or referenced in all manner of publications and discussions. Greg's book "Climate Change Scepticism" does just that, in the introductory chapter (pp.5), quoting a paragraph that includes the following line: "since the brain is set up to run a body, ideas and language can’t directly fit the world but rather must go through the body."
Reflecting on Jeff's reflection I wrote, "[m]y first instinct is to waggle my finger," in an attempt to communicate a flippant reaction I saw the me in my head having. My body reflecting on its imagined self embodying a response to two words which, perhaps better than any others I can think of, exemplify the concept of language not directly fitting the world. Democrat and Republican, two boxes/labels on either side of a spectrum (How much control over the market do you believe the elected government should have?) that is mostly irrelevant to the topics at hand when the labels are employed. However, the example of Florida's localized actions, in which Jeff employs the labels, is itself also an example of this concept. Climate change influenced ideas not fitting the (polarized) world, but rather going through the body, i.e. the land and the common needs and values residents share.
Jeff Nishima Miller
Reflecting on a reflection of my own reflection I find myself trapped in a house of mirrors. While there is a lot of time and care put into this reflection, I am left searching for the practicality in this maze-like puzzle.
The interdisciplinary space which this course provides is unique, as it brings a group together from diverse backgrounds. Each class and reflection we have a chance to learn from one another, giving us an opportunity to gain insight into the personal, academic, and work histories of our peers- which I genuinely appreciate. You have raised valid points about the use of nouns, verbs, and labels which are undeniably important. I may have gotten lost - is this a reflection on the class? Or an extension of your reflection on my reflection?
Democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, warmest, skeptic, activist, vegan, catholic, etc. are labels that identify certain values and belief systems. While these labels are not ideal, how do we identify certain groups of values and beliefs without these labels?
I am wondering how this seemingly complicated response relates to knowledge mobilization and sustainability policy? How do we navigate through a polarized world using effective communication of environmental issues without getting ourselves (and not to mention others) lost in a house of mirrors?
Nicole Bamber
Dr. Garrard made the suggestion, in his book and in his lecture this week, that the best way to address climate change issues is to reduce political polarization. Polarization exacerbates the communication issues between “warmists” (the term used to describe people who believe in anthropogenic climate change) and skeptics. I generally agree with this viewpoint, since most of the climate change arguments I observe consist of people with different opinions continually stating their own opinion, rather than listening to the other person and having a conversation about the differences in their views. Interestingly, this concept of reducing polarization relates to a discussion point about the article that my group chose to present on this week. Our article was about how Internet memes can be used to communicate about climate change issues, including skepticism. After we presented on our article, we had a short discussion about whether memes reduced or increased polarization between different sides of the climate change debate. Unanimously the class agreed that they increase polarization. This, I believe, is because of the simplistic message delivered by memes. This makes it impossible to properly address both sides of an issue, or even multiple points from the same side. The anonymity of posting on the internet also contributes to a lack of accountability for meme posters. This has the potential to allow people to post incorrect or misleading statements, stereotyping of people with opposing beliefs, or even hate speech.
Conversely, in preparation for our presentation with my group, I had formed a favourable view of memes as a form of communication across different beliefs. This was mainly because of their ability to be used to express different opinions using the same format. This helps to add meaning to the relatively simple messages delivered by memes, by clearly establishing a common context (or media frame) for the message. This facilitates online arguments or conversations between meme creators who can use familiar meme formats back and forth to effectively and quickly communicate their messages. However, the class discussion about reducing polarization made me reconsider this positive opinion of memes. After the class, I now believe that memes do contribute to the issue of polarization by stereotyping, which can make people with different beliefs feel marginalized and therefore not want to consider the meme makers opinion. This stereotyping can also reinforce the beliefs of people on the “same” side of the argument, making them less likely to consider outside opinions. Therefore I believe that memes absolutely can have a place in climate change discussions, as a source of humour and as eye-catching images to draw someone into a more detailed discussion. However, stereotyping memes can actually harm our efforts to communicate about climate change since they can lead to closed-mindedness, which will never lead to meaningful action.
Ian Turner
I definitely agree with what you've said here about memes having a place in climate change discussions. I also agree that there are significant limitations of using memes in this way. In addition to what you've identified, I believe another challenge is how quickly memes evolve and how their meanings are able to change so quickly. While normally you could take a meme at face value, interpreting it as it was originally meant, that message can very quickly be taken and twisted in such a way that it begins to be interpreted in a completely different way without actually changing anything about the meme - think, for example, Pepe the frog memes being co-opted as a symbol of white supremacy. Perhaps this points to the utility of the older memes that were included in your paper - though they aren't the most current, as early internet memes their meanings and how they should be interpreted are fairly set in stone, compared to the more plastic memes we see today.
Maria Correia
Another engaging and thought-provoking lecture, with my only regret being the limited time to cover other chapters of Hulme’s book. My reflections are too numerous but, overall, I am left with two big ideas from the lectures. First, from Hulme, that nothing will end the disagreement about climate change because of differences/challenges in assessing values and risks. And, second, from Greg Gerrard et al, that political polarization is the biggest factor behind the chasm between believers and non-believers, and hence, as Greg indicated in the lecture, that the “silver bullet” is addressing political polarization.
On the first point, Hulme concludes in his last chapter (pg. 337) that even if we were to agree and able to restabilize global climate, we would still live in a world with “wars, poverty, inequality, hunger and disease” and lives would still be devastated by extreme weather events. True, but at least we would still be here. In contrast, we could be facing human (and other living forms of) extinction with runaway warming. To be blunt, we cannot equate the possible existential problem of climate change with wars, poverty, inequality and disease, and other global issues, which Hulme appears to suggest. We need to use our creativity and ingenuity to continue to fight all of these issues but climate change in particular. On a personal level, my professional career was in international development and while my interests have shifted to climate change, I am reassured that my work on social injustice issues needs to continue.
On the second point, yes, we must find and focus on the common values that bind us to counter the political ideologies that polarize us, but globally we are moving in the opposite direction (e.g. in Turkey, Hungary, Poland, to Britain and the United States, to name a few countries). And in the case of the US, Trump and Putin’s Russia are only too happy to exploit this polarization. A new book, “Why we are polarized” by Ezra Klein, has yet to be released but looks to provide important insights on the basic human tendency to form powerful group attachments. He makes the point that politics are a source of identity rather than an ideology, which is what I observed from the 23 years I lived in the US. This suggests understanding identity as a highly powerful and emotional attachment, which trumps self-interest. For myself, this means that if I am to understand what motivates people on climate change, I must take the time to comprehend what feeds their cultural identity and move outside the comfortable group of people who think like I do.
One other issue that came up in the readings for me is the question of gender. Behind political polarization and seemingly climate change skepticism is the threat to (white) male identity and men losing status and economic power relative to women. As someone who has spent a career raising the importance of male side of gender in development, I was interested to see that this dimension of gender has again come up as it relates to identity, political polarization and climate change.
Nadia
Dear Maria, I really appreciate that you have brought up these two points. I as well believe that they were the most pivotal points of the previous session.
About your first point, as far as i am concerned, I agree with you. It is true that we cannot address all the social, geographical, and climate issues with one shot. The issues of poverty, hunger, injustice, have always been there, and they never have been addressed properly over the history of urbanization. Of course the situation is deteriorated by the climate change, but by mitigation of global warming, they do not seem to be solved, and we need different abatement for them.
About you second point, there is a lot that can be discussed, and the discussion can become very long. In my opinion, people tend to look up to their government, if the government is not taking care of the environment the majority of people would think, they don’t care, why would I? generally, if you talk to people, they all care about the environment, keeping their connection to mother Earth, and saving it, but it is not reflected in everyone’s’ behavior and life style, as they may think: our government only cares about themselves, I need to do so.
My country, Iran, is the only country that has a reference to the environment in their Constitution: “any form of activity that is recognized to be harmful to the environment is illegal.” Interestingly it is among the least sustainable countries in the world, and the GDP is oil-based. The Same thing happens to US, US claims that they seek peace, at the same time that have the largest gun industry. It is obvious that polarization happens with such way of thinking; and up until the money is involved, I personally do not see unity among people or governments; or even a room for emotions or sympathy.
We at the class discussed about social media, as a cause for polarization, in my perspective that is another source of money for the governments.
And about your last paragraph, I have no idea. But that is a great topic that you pointed out.
Nadia Mahmoudi
I wrote about my primary points in the comment of Maria’s reflection above, so here I will be sticking to some detailed points.
In the previous session, we discussed the climate change risk assessment and learned how with the increase of the global warming the risk of uncertainty increases; we talked about the science-policy nexus and the economic problems accompanied with it. In my view, with the economic analysis of climate change, everyone should get convinced that taking measures for climate change is a must, yet I learned as it is hard to put a value for some of the external costs, such as value of loss of human life, or extinction of some species. The book which Greg introduced to the class, Risk, was very interesting for me in this regard.
In addition, we discussed that as there are some fundamental disagreements about the benefits and risks of human-induced environmental change, there are four different myths about nature and how they naturally respond to the changes. I found useful reading material in this regard in the Society & Its Environment book. Regarding nature’s response to human activities, there is always a debate on whether mitigation is necessary or adaptation. In my perspective, any living thing has a limited capacity for self-healing, and human activities is no longer like a wound on nature; it is more like cancer. Therefore, I believe that at this point, there is no room left for adaptation. In the second part of the class, we discussed polarization, and how the “attentional economy” has created the “filter bubble” that can exacerbate the binary view to its extreme point. I believe that this is an intentional policy that can be prevented. If the countries are genuinely committed to the Paris agreement, I believe that countries can invest in a more focused and productive filter bubble to increase attention, awareness, and concerns about climate change to get the peoples’ contribution in this regard. In chapter 6 of Thomashow’s book, the importance of using the internet as a means for strengthening and lessening the human condition is pointed out.
Maria Correia
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reflections Nadia. A few reactions on my side.
First, on risk, I too found the cultural theory of risk as it relates to climate change adaptation extremely useful, in terms of understanding dominant cultural worldviews on nature and people/groups beliefs on how nature works. I will use this framework in my discussions on climate risk to help me better discern where people stand in the risk spectrum. Interestingly, I had come across this theory of risk before, as well as another construct, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, which suggests that nature and perceived risk is malleable depending on filters along communication links (persons, groups or media). The discussion in class and from Hulme’s book, have tempted me to learn more about this.
Second, on your point about mitigation versus adaptation, I think we need to work on both mitigation (i.e. address the root causes of anthropogenic climate change) and adapt to climate change (if nothing else, because our very survival depends on it). I do agree with our analogy of the destruction of the environment by humans as a cancer that is hard to contain and overcome. I am optimistic however that we can work to heal the cancer even though climate change is a quintessential wicked problem.
And finally, on political polarization, as you point out, “exacerbating the binary view” is exactly the issue. But unfortunately, and as I pointed out in my own reflection, individuals like Trump and Putin have cleverly exploited and benefited from this polarization. Ideally, we would use platforms such as social media to counter this increasing gulf and yet we know that social media has been used as a force for both good and bad. But still, as you suggest, we must try.
Stephenie Hendricks
I came away from this lecture wondering - what does "political ideology" mean?
If someone is afraid that their children won't be able to breathe clean air because of fossil fuel emissions, is that "political ideology?" If others worked for Exxon their entire life and now depend on that pension (as is the case with one of my cousins), would the idea of stopping fossil fuels terrify them with the thought of losing their retirement income? What I would like to examine more closely is what exactly, does "political ideology" mean to deniers? Are they afraid of losing money? Power? What does it mean to "warmists? Are they afraid of not having an environment in which to live?
It seems dismissive to just boil things down to ideology without understanding why that ideology exists. Is there something deeper that we can see? In a very brief foray into scholarly work on this, I came across an article by a political psychology scholar named Jan Emmanuel-De Neve that quotes several other scholars as believing that “ideology is the result of both the social and environmental experiences throughout the course of life and the predispositions with which individuals are endowed from the start of life.”
There have been other studies on what makes someone a conservative person versus a progressive person. A study where young adults were given MRIs of their brains revealed that for those who self-reported as conservative, the area in their brain where fear is located is larger than what might be considered normal. Those who self-identify as progressive had larger than normal areas of their brains where compassion and empathy reside. It was a small sampling, but an interesting result.
Thinking about this lecture has led me to many more questions. What kind of personality and life experiences have deniers had that lead them to their point of view? Are there any clues as to what shapes a denier or a warmist? Are there, for example, links to family income as they were growing up? Or how their parents made a living? This particular point was mentioned to me by a born and raised Detroiter as I visit my daughter. So many families made their wealth from the US auto industry there historically that electric cars and hybrids are regularly vandalized and defaced as an action from those who support the fossil fueled autos of their parents’ economic support systems. By the same token, how many warmists grew up in their very early years, as I did, roaming neighboring wilderness to their homes, exploring nature?
Identifying ideology as a major factor in the climate discussion is an important discovery. I think one avenue spreading out from this is to discover how that ideology is formed, and hope that both sides agree that surviving changes in our climate requires a stepped up cooperation among those who disagree about how or why the changes occur.
Ariele Parker
Stephanie, I first must applaud you on your stunning grasp of the english language. Every time that I read something you have written I am in awe of how well you articulate your thoughts with such an artistic flourish! Beyond the excellent penmanship, I greatly appreciate your reflection and how you have brought in outside articles to back up your thoughts as well as a conversation with an individual from Detroit. I appreciate your consideration of a “denier” and a “warmist” and how you consider the journey they have taken throughout their lifetimes to reach their separate conclusions. I agree with you that it is multi-faceted in both cultural upbringing etc. Thank you for the wonderfully written reflection!
Ariele Parker
Reflective Thinking. I greatly enjoyed the lecture from Professor Greg Garrard. He has a dynamic way of presenting the course content while continuously engaging the audience that works well for my learning style. I am an auditory learner so learn a lot through listening closely to the topic and doing further research after the class through a multitude of different media such as research papers, news clips and documentaries. The concept of a “filter bubble” struck me as rather interesting and is a topic I spent some time researching after the class.
Analysis. In some preliminary research, I came across a definition of filter bubbles that summarizes them as minimizing exposure to information that challenges individual attitudes (Pariser, 2011). A fascinating research paper I came across looks at rapid societal changes such as Brexit and the polarization of the US American society in the course of Donald Trump's election campaign. I found this paper to be particularly related to the subject matter discussed in class as it covered both filter bubbles and polarization. These two topics are both interdisciplinary and I believe that they are closely related as they look at world views and how individuals form their thoughts and opinions.
Making Connections. As I wrote in the last reflection, I am Canadian citizen and grew up in Alberta till the age of 16 then moved to British Columbia. I strongly identify as a Western Canadian and I make connections to the course material through this lens. Furthermore, I have a bachelor’s degree in business management from UBC Okanagan and nine years working in the marketing industry prior to starting my masters. Based on both my cultural roots in Western Canada and my professional experience in marketing, I tend to think about my experience in social media from an advertisers point of view and creating filter bubbles is very much the goal of many advertisers. Through social media, these advertisers encourage users to engage with and purchase their products. One of the main reasons I took a step back from my career to come back to school and study sustainability was that I became disenfranchised with the way that most current marketing techniques pressure individuals to continuously consume goods and services at a pace that is not sustainable for our planet. This narrative is a current “filter bubble” that is being communicated to people that a consumer culture is to be valued. While we spoke about filter bubbles in a less positive sense in class I think that like marketing, they can be used for good and I’m curious to see how we can change the narrative of filter bubbles, especially on social media from that of “consume, consume, consume” to both “reuse, reuse, reuse” and “innovate, innovate, innovate.”
Stephenie Hendricks
I agree that Dr. Garrard is a compelling and passionate presenter of his scholarly research, and we are lucky to get this firsthand experience of him sharing it.
Ariel, this is great that you focused in on the "filter bubble" concept. Thank you for providing us with additional scholarly references. The way you tie this linear academic information to your own considerable real world experience of communicating to the public lends credibility and relevance to the identification of the concept.
I empathize with losing faith with popular media culture that serves to support the ever-insatiable need for consumption that accompanies our economic system. Analysts are always talking about “growth,” but rarely look at a company’s sustainability, consider benefits to communities, workers, or environment.
I had an epiphany this week about the “filter bubble” effect as news of US sports celebrity Kobe Bryant’s sudden death took over almost all media. This brought people together in grief. Others wanted to keep the historic record of Bryant’s past accusation of sexual violence in the spotlight, too, thus launching other bubbles related to the #metoo movement. But the take away for me is that a “grief factor” accelerates filter bubbles.
Amarpreet Kaur
It was very fascinating for me as Dr. Garrard discussed the role of political polarization in influencing the climate change. As far I have seen in different news reports, research article and learned from Dr. Garrard’s lectures, I can say partisans differ more about climate change than any other issue. So, the people with two distinct extreme ideologies also differs about the causes of climate change, its seriousness and what should be done about it. The issue of climate change becomes less or more important for people according to their beliefs. Like, it was also discussed in our group paper that liberals and conservatives define climate change issue as ‘butter issue’ and ‘gun issue’ respectively. I think, increasing political polarization is a malign problem that is not allowing to find any solution to mitigate the problem.
I came across a very interesting article in which authors analysed the impact of social media on political polarization. It was found that the Republicans support for the Green New Deal (to generate 100% energy from renewable instead of fossil fuels) was rapidly decreased over a short period (four months) as it was constantly discussed on conservative Fox media. If I confer about my country India, partisans with their rudimentary belief system do not pay much attention to climate change and ill effects on it, rather they use religion as the base for political polarization. Mostly, their aim is to influence the communities in majority (Hinduism) in order to secure their political positions. Their snappy obsession for political power often lead them to create substandard situations. For instance, in 2017, Baduria (West Bengal) experienced riots caused by some derogatory pictures posted on Facebook against the Muslim community in minority. Instead of subsiding the situation the political partisans took it as opportunity to create havoc and religious differences among people. In fact, I feel lines across the differing ideologies are getting more sharper in recent times. Additionally, memes, videos, pictures and story telling techniques used by media to grab people’s attention often intensifies polarization and makes their beliefs more stronger.
As the news media prevails significant amount of influence over people believing different ideologies, so it has the power in manipulating polarization. In recent times, media is regulated by the specific political parties and misleading the public. So, it has become hard to trust the news anymore. In my opinion, news media should also withstand against the biased perspective of political parties and provide users with realistic, unbiased and righteous information. Moreover, the people of different ideologies should also interact with each other personally or using media and discuss the policies leaving their image as a party member behind, then we might reach a neutral solution. Another way out is to lay more emphasis on polices and votes should be casted for the policies not for the parties, but for that, people have to act more responsibly and wisely.
Aditya Shingvi :
Hi Amarpreet ,
I agree with Dr. Garrad's discussion on the role of political polarization in influencing formulation of policies around climate change. How would you bring two groups with stark differences in ideologies on the same page regarding the cause of climate change, its current and future impacts and the amount of efforts that need to be put in to mitigate the same? I can resonate with your view on how the issue of climate change can be of varying importance to people according to their beliefs or the social or the political group they identify with. Its a known fact that the "free" media often times further interests of only the particular party they are supporting and resort to distorting facts that are shown to public in an effort to increase the polarization. On the contrary, I believe people are also actually having more avenues to get information especially with the advent of social media and cheap data and form their own opinions.
Aditya Shingvi
While I thoroughly enjoy the way Dr. Garrard delivers his point, I was not able to relate fully to the North American political context of the discussion. The one thing that had me thinking was how the media which is supposed to be free of any bias is generally inclined to one or the other political party. So essentially most news is reported in a fashion that either distorts or exaggerates facts that can result in creating a divide among the public. This can be particularly dangerous in times when climate scientists have sounded an alarm and there is desperate need to come at a consensus. In a way their beliefs and ideas are being cemented on being exposed to "fake news" and this can have dangerous consequences.
While climate change is a "wicked problem" there is no straight forward solution. Through Dr.Garrads lectures I was able to look at the problem through the lens of both deniers and skeptics. As long as we dont find a common denominator that does not challenge people's identity, and expect them to sacrifice their way of life we will still be going around in circles.
Amarpreet Kaur
Hi Aditya,
I agree with your point of view that social media has the power to create a divide among the public. Moreover, it should be free of any bias but it is not as it is highly influenced by money, power and other political and social factors. I could not think of anything that could be done to make social media act more responsibly and genuinely. For sure, there is no straight forward solution to this wicked problem as the deniers and skeptics both have different beliefs for the causes of climate change. I believe, one solution could be to convince the different ideologies on the common ground but it is easier said than done.