The KDF and Diverging Views on the Protection of Civilians in AMISOM

accord.org

It is generally understood that uniformed personnel serving in peace operations, from a variety of different militaries and in a variety of different settings, will understand and conceptualize their experiences and operations in different ways. This is true when we examine how personnel from different Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) view the Protection of Civilians (POC). As Fiifi Edu-Afful notes in his IPI report on peacekeeping in non-permissive environments, “the mindset of peacekeeping contingents is often predicated on the concepts and attitudes imparted through the training and doctrinal perspective of the TCC that deployed them.” However, what happens when the views of peacekeepers differ from their training? I explore a possible case of this occurring through the example of Kenyan peacekeepers deployed in the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). 

Through conducting interviews, reviewing archival documents, and analyzing open-source information, I found that there is a disconnect between what Kenyan Defence Forces (KDF) personnel were taught regarding protection and what they actually believe. This article examines that difference, how it came to be, and the implications of the existence of that disconnect for future research and policy. However, it is important to caveat that this research is currently exploratory as it is based on relatively limited data and observations.

This article begins by examining how KDF personnel are taught about POC and what concepts they are taught, which are based around conventional existing UN doctrine. It then looks at how KDF personnel who served in AMISOM actually view POC, which is more outcomes-based, community-focused, and holistic. It then examines possible reasons why this disconnect occurred, building off the KDF’s organizational history and the operating experience they found themselves in in Somalia. It then concludes by presenting some concluding thoughts and implications for policymakers and academics.  

KDF pre-deployment training, mostly based at the International Peace Support Training Center (IPSTC), had limited specialized protection training, and what specialized POC training was offered was based on pre-existing UN doctrine, such as the published “Policy on The Protection of Civilians in United nations Peacekeeping” and the “Protection of Civilians Handbook,” that emphasizes certain methods and objectives  One reviewed training schedule, for infantry units deploying to a UN mission, included only a single 45 minute training block fully dedicated to the “Protection of Civilians.” It’s likely that personnel deploying to AMISOM received similar levels of total pre-deployment training but with even less of a theoretical emphasis on POC. A civilian working at the center noted that both UN and AU pre deployment training used a similar structure and two-week training schedule. However, multiple trainers who worked with the KDF noted that units deploying to Somalia received a stronger focus on “basic soldiering skills,” given the harsh environment and by extension a lesser focus on academic topics, such as the module on POC compared to pre-deployment for UN missions. These modules were usually a combination of lectures, discussions, and scenario-based learning.

While we don’t currently know what material is specifically taught in AMISOM pre-deployment training, a review of training material gives us a strong idea of how the IPSTC conceptualized POC as a general concept before it was made mission specific. This can be determined by their facilitators’ guide for their specialized “Protection of Civilians” course that, while not in and of itself widely attended within the KDF, shows how the IPSTC views POC and might teach at a smaller scale to those deploying to Somalia. 

The conceptualization of POC offered by the specialized POC course is almost entirely in line with existing UN doctrine. In the course, POC activities are divided into three tiers of operation (Protection through Political Process, Protection from Physical Violence, and Establishing a Protective Environment) across four phases (Prevention, Pre-emption, Response, and Consolidation). In UN doctrine, POC activities are also divided into three tiers of operation (Protection through dialogue and engagement, Provision of physical protection, and Establishment of a protective environment) also across four phases (Prevention, Pre-emption, Response, and Consolidation).

Despite the differences in mandate and operating environment, the use of UN doctrine makes sense. It is already well established, developed, and tested. Thus, it makes sense to teach it to those deploying to AMISOM. Even if the difference in mandate (AMISOM, for example, does not have an active protection mandate unlike many UN missions) makes some parts of it irrelevant. However, the ways in which personnel trained in UN doctrine interact with their operational environment combine to form a new conceptual framework for POC. 

KDF personnel who had served in AMISOM, however, displayed a very different conceptualization of POC. This manifested itself in two ways. First, they conceptualized POC as community based and outcome based rather than process based and based around particular incidents as in standard doctrine. Second, they focused on how POC could “work” for the KDF.

 Firstly, KDF personnel viewed POC on a community level. When asked what a “successful POC” looks like, one KDF officer who had served in AMISOM answered that it involved a scenario with reduced violence, where people could go back to businesses and students could go back to school. Importantly, this is outcome-based. It describes what happens when POC activities are implemented well rather than describing what activities would help create that environment. It was also community-based. It describes improving conditions for the community as a whole rather than protecting specific targeted individuals or groups from imminent physical harm, which is what UN POC doctrine prioritizes. 

There was also a desire to view POC through the lens of AMISOM’s stabilization and peace enforcement mandate. Another KDF officer, who served in AMISOM as part of a EOD unit, described teaching civilians how to recognize IEDs as a POC success. While this obviously mitigates civilian harm and is a clear-cut case of POC, he also highlighted how that was useful for the KDF because it allowed for local civilians to better report possible threats to KDF patrols. Similarly, many AMISOM public statements on POC and increased POC awareness focus on civilian harm mitigation or reducing the threat to civilians from one’s own action, instead of from other actors. This is in order to prevent backlash and loss of support amongst the mission. Several sources spoke of established loss of local support, partially as the result of civilian casualties caused by AMISOM, as a key challenge to mission effectiveness. This suggests that, especially in non-permissive environments where POC is not a core mandated activity, POC activities (such as training civilians to recognize IEDs) is viewed as a means to an end (stabilization) rather than an end in and of itself. 

While there is a clear difference between what KDF personnel are taught regarding POC and what they actually believe, it is less clear why that gap occurs. One reason may relate to the operational environment. AMISOM and the Somali context is very different from the average environment where UN peacekeeping operations operate (such as the DRC and South Sudan) in two major ways: the mission mandate and the operating environment. 

Compared to many other African conflicts, the conflict in Somalia features fewer cases of large scale and deliberate targeting of civilian population. Using data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), we can track violence dynamics. During AMISOM’s 8+ years of operation, ACLED only recorded 37 attacks against civilians with 10 or more fatalities. In contrast, during the first six months of 2022 alone, the DRC saw 29 such attacks, the Central African Republic 12, Mali 34, and South Sudan 19. In contrast to other conflicts, where the large-scale massacre of civilians is a common tactic by armed groups, most Somali civilians who died in conflict die in smaller scale incidents such as assassinations, IEDs, and crossfire during battles between different armed groups.

There are also key differences between UN peacekeeping mandates and AMISOM’s mandate. While all large-scale UN peacekeeping operations are mandated to protect civilians from imminent physical harm, AMISOM lacks such an explicit mandate. However, interviews with KDF personnel showed an internal buy-in to do POC amongst KDF personnel, and conducting POC activities was still encouraged to some extent by AMISOM leadership.

These two factors partially explain the difference in POC conceptualization. In UN missions, where the explicit mandate is to protect civilians from “Imminent Physical Harm,” POC becomes focused on ways to prevent incidents, where “Imminent Physical Harm” occur on a large scale such as massacres. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this, such as mediating local conflict, conducting military patrols, and developing early warning networks, but the objective is the same. The conceptualization of POC develops along that line. In contrast, civilian casualties in Somalia don’t largely occur as a result of large-scale attacks that result in “Imminent Physical Harm.” Instead, they largely occur as a byproduct of the conflict between the government and Al-Shabaab. Thus, the KDF vision of POC, where the successful implementation of POC programs is framed around communities returning to normalcy as a result of stabilizing the community in general, rather than preventing specific negative events. This is speculative, but the view could be that, by reducing and ending the conflict between armed groups, the threat to civilians brought by the conflict is coincidentally ended, thus protecting civilians. The lack of mandate also means that AMISOM personnel aren’t mandated to intervene in cases of “Imminent Physical Harm.” They are, however, mandated to defeat Al-Shabaab and (theoretically) end the conflict and, thus, the threat to civilians as a result of that conflict. 

While environmental effects of the Somali context were the primary driver in the division between what KDF personnel were taught regarding POC and what they believed, there are probably also other secondary contributing factors. While these factors would require further research to be fully understood, there are some factors within the KDFs organizational culture that might influence the development of their views on POC. The KDF was formed immediately after independence with the assistance of their former colonial masters and have had a close working relationship with the British ever since. The KDF fits the mold of a colonial military, where the military is consistently trained, equipped, and supported by the former colonial power. Compared to many of its neighbors, the KDF has a strong history of political non-interference in domestic affairs. The KDF also hasn’t fought in any major conflicts beyond some small domestic counterinsurgency efforts until their commitment to AMISOM. Several foreign trainers I’ve spoken with highlighted how this level of intensity marked a new challenge for the KDF, forcing the organization to further professionalize, receive additional training, and adopt modern COIN doctrine when they previously never had to. This collective experience means that the Kenyan experience in Somalia is possibly formative for the KDF’s conceptualization of itself and how it operates. The reason why the KDF’s view on POC lines up with the Somali context so well, versus being incorporated into a wider schema, is because AMISOM has represented the first and most dominant experience of the KDF with regards to POC. 

Peacekeeping is becoming an increasingly multilateral institution, as more and more countries from different regions and backgrounds deploy troops to peacekeeping missions. As this article has established, the environment peacekeepers are deployed in has a significant impact on their views towards their activities and peacekeeping concepts. There is room for more research on this topic. While it has been laid out here that KDF personnel have a unique view on protection, there is room to explore how personnel from different TCCs view POC through their own separate lenses. Within that, there is also room to explore how the different combinations of military culture, training/doctrine, and operational experience can impact the perceptions of peacekeepers. This, in turn, will help policymakers, planners, and practitioners better understand the diversity of views within peacekeeping and help them better conduct successful implementations of POC mandates.

Propagate By Poison: The Landscape of China's Rural-Urban Dichotomy

noemamag.com

For thousands of years, the agrarian heartlands were the very heartbeat of Chinese civilization. Writing years before the establishment of the first imperial dynasty and long before the industrialization of China, reformer Shang Yang deduced that harnessing the plow was the path to harnessing power in the context of the tumultuous Warring States era. His recommendation of “emphasizing agriculture and restraining business” to the Qin state passed down through the subsequent dynasties. Though Shang Yang’s reforms were a boon to Qin productivity, state wealth, and facilitated the establishment of the first Chinese empire, modern China has chosen to address its current challenges with a different approach. While the contrast between agriculture and business remains intact, the growing chasm between the rural and urban worlds may have more negative political ramifications than positive ones in the current Chinese political economy. 

Today, the People’s Republic of China’s wealth and power can be found concentrated on the coasts, which have rapidly developed since the 1978 implementation of an “open door policy” ushered in a frenzy of technology absorption and economic entwinement with the world market, marked especially by special economic zone development. Around this time, prevailing perceptions in China conceived the rural sector and the developed, urbanized one as rather disjointed, with economists and policymakers at the forefront of the Coastal Development Strategy envisioning an increased interdependence between the two spheres. The last phase within this roughly 20 to 30 year plan prescribed a leveraging of the wealth derived from industry to develop the agricultural inland areas. 

More than 30 years have gone by since this framework was first introduced, and the integration of urban and rural prosperity leaves much to be desired. Income inequality, disparity in education opportunities, and stark differences in market participation show the huge gaps that persist between the urban and rural worlds of the same nation. This sharp contrast is due largely in part to the Hukou system, a policy set by the central government under Mao in 1958, which local governments possess the authority to enforce today. Under this system, citizens must register their birthplace as their permanent residence and can only change this registration by obtaining a special permit. Local governments set numerous bureaucratic hurdles for would-be migrants to jump over in order to control demographics and human capital. Given that the typical direction of migration in China is from poorer, rural areas to wealthier, urban ones, newcomers to the metropolises have an especially onerous time obtaining permits, and therefore frequently find themselves barred from accessing public social support services and stalled in their quest for upward mobility. As a result, the polarization between urbanites and country-dwellers persists. 

Sowing Division Under Maoist Socialism 

Mao Zedong, a so-called son of the soil, led his army of peasants to victory against the Chinese Nationalist Party and ushered in an age of “Socialist Serfdom.” On an ideological level, Maoism is grounded in the quest for equality, in the destruction of the hierarchical feudal ways and days of old. In reality, the disenfranchisement of Chinese rustics is in many cases firmly rooted in Mao-era policies. As with many other facets of modern Chinese society, stepping out of the shadow cast by Chairman Mao’s legacy poses a serious challenge to untangling the political, economic, and social aggravations of this fissure. 

From the very beginning of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule, cities have been an exceptional pressure point on regime stability. For most of the Chinese Civil War, cities stayed loyal to the Chinese Nationalist Party, and before that, were largely beholden to foreign interests and exploitation. The CCP desperately needed to grab the reins of these hotspots of crime and dissension, and they perceived the influx of post-civil war migration as a key source of destabilization. Hence, while the immediate aftermath of the war saw the pattern of urban migration that one might expect in the wake of major upheaval, the CCP began to devote serious time and effort to taming both the urban and rural populations- typically by offering the former a carrot and the latter a stick. For example, the countryside was negatively affected by the implementation of the Unified Purchase and Unified Sale system in 1953 by the state setting the price at which it would buy the mandated quota of crops, which naturally came under market value. The government then distributed the purchased food in urban centers, lowering the cost of living there and thereby necessitating more stringent migration policies. Consequently, the hukou system came into effect in 1958, granting governments the power to control people’s movements. 

 The government promptly began to exercise its newfound powers by recruiting millions to work in the factories meant to fuel the Great Leap Forward. This leap landed with a faceplant, and tens of millions of workers were deported back to the countryside, where tens of millions of people subsequently starved to death. The consequences of this were not only that migration to cities became even more difficult, but also that rural areas were increasingly left to fend for themselves. Depressed by unemployment and all the social ills that entails, rural regions were mandated by Mao to dust themselves off and get to building infrastructure that would boost agricultural production. That surplus, of course, would be handed over to the government at cheap prices to then be exported overseas in order to fund industrial development. The Mao era undoubtedly exhibited urban bias, a bias which persists today. Back then, as is largely the case now, urbanites enjoyed many more public goods and social services than their rural counterparts, such as education, maternity leave, pensions, medical care, and housing assistance. Moreover, the welfare provided to urban residents was in no small part funded by the labor of farmworkers, as by some estimates, the practice of buying agricultural goods at low prices resulted in the government transferring around 534 billion yuan away from the rural sector between 1955 and 1985. 

It might be curious that for all the CCP is anxious about discontentment breeding regime instability and achieving social harmony, their long-held practice of neglecting the well-being of the rustics continues to drive a wedge in between the urban and rural populaces. But this is not without consequences; dissatisfaction on both sides has long driven protests and government insecurity, perhaps hinting at an overall pattern of poison from within. 

Seedlings of Social Unrest

So what about the reform era? Surely, the government after Mao’s death saw some improvement in the lives of farmers. And indeed, while fiscal policy did raise the price at which the government purchased agricultural goods, thereby benefiting rural areas, the government quickly caved to pressure from urbanites, who sought to maintain their relative advantages. As was the case under Mao, the CCP feared the political repercussions of disgruntled city-dwellers and thus resumed the pattern whereby urban citizens cowed the government into maintaining their higher standards of living. 

Even when the government chose to respond to political unrest with military action, such as in 1989 when inflation racked the urban cost of living to the point of protest, the follow-up included amendments to the economic policies in order to quell urban discontent. Furthermore, although the reform period is known for walking back the controlled economy model, pressure for urban protections led to fund transfers to subsidize struggling state-owned enterprises. 

For all that the reform period championed economic growth, the government considered it worthwhile to sacrifice economic efficiency in order to ensure regime stability. At the same time, the CCP greatly relies on its ability to deliver on economic outcomes in order to keep the peace. By centering the economic heart of China in urban centers, and devoting significant resources to keeping that heart beating, even at the expense of rural reforms, the government has trapped itself in an unsustainable cycle. With every turn of this cycle, the second-class status of rural citizens becomes more entrenched.

To better compare, consider the CCP response to rural outcry. In the 2000s, the government continued to take over land for urban development with an explicit lack of regard for local input, and these protests were punctuated with a 2010 demand to end the Hukou system. At the time, Premier Wen Jiabao had alluded to the possibility of dismantling the system, but when the government had to respond to the clamor by suppressing circulation of these sentiments, he quickly changed his messaging to suggest more moderate changes. 

Herein lies the tension between social stability and economic improvements. To some degree, the economy is an ever-growing vine attached to the tree of Chinese societal harmony. The vine enhances the outward vibrancy of the tree, bestowing a majestic weight, and to remove the vine would peel off the protective bark with it. And yet, cultivating the vine has allowed it to grow beyond the tree’s control, consuming the life force of its host. 

This Season’s Harvest 

While the economic risks the CCP continues to run by not addressing the growing gulf between rural and urban residents are surely troubling, it is important to acknowledge that the divisions Hukou creates have a human impact on real people’s hopes and dreams and happiness. Where someone lives and what industry they work in is part of a much greater story about what they call home. 

The families of those migrants who attempt to make it in the metropolises despite their rural Hukou status are left behind on one side of the river while their loved ones desperately try to swim across. This has led to the phenomena of “left behind children,” a vulnerable group of youths who are emotionally, mentally, and academically delayed while their parents attempt to escape rural poverty. As an earlier section mentioned Socialist Serfdom, whereby Chinese society under Mao saw the systematic treatment of rural residents as the underclass, it appears this lowest class has split off into an additional caste, made up of migrants. While they do not have the same privileges as urban Hukou holders, they do have access to the amenities of city living and in general enjoy higher standards of living compared to the countryside. This comes at the cost of the families they leave behind, as Hukou restrictions limit access to both childcare and quality education. It is estimated that 1 in 5 children in China are “Left Behind,” unable to see one or more of their parents for most of the year.  

On the flipside of this, the fallout from the Covid pandemic and the subsequent rise in youth unemployment saw numerous remarks made in the spring of this year regarding a push to return China’s youths to the countryside. Are we seeing the start of a new wave of “rustication”? President Xi has recently encouraged young professionals to focus on reenergizing rural areas, to convert their urban-bred talents into countryside innovation. The idea seems to have had a decent reception, with reports by the Chinese government of increased migration to rural parts leading to improved agricultural production and higher quality rural tourism. Social media has likely played a role in idealizing farm life, an Asian counterpart to the popular cottagecore aesthetic. However, the idyllic pastoral life is not at all like influencers portray, which the young rusticated urbanites soon discover. The comforts and economic opportunities of the city still hold considerable sway over someone’s choice of where to live, especially if that person is born with an urban Hukou and thus has greater options available. These accounts make it difficult to believe at face value CCP messaging about the great enthusiasm the youth supposedly have for rural life and reads more like an attempt to preempt social turmoil brought on by idle, disillusioned young people. The government’s decision to stop reporting the rate of youth unemployment altogether makes the whole narrative even more suspect. 

This sense of disillusionment is growing stronger especially in the housing market, which like many aspects of the Chinese economy is an incoming crisis of the government’s own making. The housing market remains a sector under immense government oversight if not outright control, and the current issues it poses is in no small part linked to the Hukou system. Hukou is an instrument with which the government can control demand, and this leads to neglect of the supply side. Moreover, poor property tax systems render them an inadequate means of adjusting housing prices. And of course, in spite of the difficulties the government sets in citizens’ ways, the advantages of living in a city are still much greater in many cases than the difficulties. Decades of urban bias have built myriad social services, and even for those migrants who do not have the urban Hukou status to take full advantage of welfare, having some benefits is better than none. Although, because of the aforementioned informal caste system, migrants tend to be relegated to renting, which comes with significantly fewer benefits than home ownership. Home ownership is made even more valuable by the fact that it often dictates who gets priority to send their children to the best schools. Sometimes, even the length of time a person has resided in a school district can give them the upper hand in admissions. 

In essence, the urban populace has been pitted against one another to fight for limited housing, but the government has made housing so necessary to access the full benefits of being an urban resident that demand climbs even as the fight becomes more fatiguing. The Hukou system ostensibly seeks to curb the demand, but in fact it only aggravates these various points of contention.

The housing crisis is a symptom of the Hukou system failing both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government. But while the former would likely be better off with the abolition of the system, the latter clings to any means of controlling its people. Some have suggested that the government simply does not know how to bring Hukou to an end without sparking an upheaval that would threaten the very stability it is trying to maintain, while others speculate that this is a sign of local governments flouting central government recommendations. Perhaps it is instead correct, if radical, to say that the system of Chinese government itself is unsustainable, constantly locked in desperate need to bolster prosperity and keep a leash on the beast it scrambles to feed.   

  With this understanding, the urban-rural divide is clearly antithetical to the themes of social harmony and cohesion that the CCP supposedly desires. And yet, to stay in power the CCP has had to exacerbate this divide time and again or risk its grip on power. It seems that this contrast is useful neither for economic efficiency nor for stability, and yet without it those goals could not stay afloat. There is a Chinese saying that warns not to drink poison to slake one’s thirst. The poison here is the polarization between the urban and rural worlds, while the Chinese government thirsts for authority and economic strength. 

Schrodinger’s Breakaway Region: Russia and the Issue of Transnistria

euronews.com

Since February 2022, the existence of “breakaway” or separatist regions in Eastern Europe have skyrocketed into mainstream news and political analysis. A full year into the Russian-Ukrainian war has heightened the discussion of what could come post-war for separatist regions and the consequences of those outcomes. This also has implications for the separatist region of Transnistria, located in Ukraine’s neighboring country of Moldova. While recognized only by Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the Republic of Artsakh, Transnistria, or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, has operated as a quasi-state since the government of Moldova designated it as an autonomous territorial unit in 2005. It is crucial to remember that the day when the existence of Transnistria is questioned is imminent. It is not whether this question will be raised, but more so when Transnistria’s existence will be questioned, how it will be questioned, and whether there is an answer to the “problem of Transnistria.” 

Before delving into these questions, it must be explained why Transnistria is a “problem.” From a Western perspective, Transnistria is occupied territory. With the war in Ukraine raging, more conversations are being had about the status of separatist regions with a Russian military presence. Increasingly, these areas are being looked at as regions that must be liberated from Russian militarization. In the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “we believe that the territory of Transnistria is the territory of the independent state of Moldova, and they [Russians] are constantly making provocations.” The outcome of the war in Ukraine will have ripple effects globally. As such, from a western democratic perspective, the existence of Transnistria is a problem that will eventually need to be resolved. 

In early 2023, it seemed the day of reckoning for Transnistria was on the horizon. On February 9th, President Zelenskyy announced that Ukrainian intelligence had discovered a Russian plot to “destroy” Moldova. Moldova, like Ukraine, has continued to drift further away from Moscow’s sphere of influence after the election of President Maia Sandu in 2020. Since her election, Sandu has been vocal in her belief that Russia should withdraw its military personnel from Transnistria. Early in her presidency, Sandu stated that it was her opinion that there was foreign interference during the dissolution of the Soviet Union which created the Transnistrian conflict to hinder Moldova’s strides towards independence. There has been a Russian military presence in Transnistria since 1992, when the cease-fire agreement between Moldova and Transnistria established the presence of troops as “peacekeepers.” As of today, Transnistria houses approximately 1,500 Russian armed forces personnel, seven Mi-24 attack helicopters, and around 100 armored vehicles. While these numbers may not call for immediate alarm, the presence of Russian military, and the memory of the Transnistrian war in the early 90’s, has been a looming presence since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Zelenskyy’s announcement of Russia’s plans for Moldova stoked pre-existing concerns over whether Moldova is the next country to be invaded.  

As one of the Eastern Bloc’s “frozen” conflicts, Transnistria has remained in stasis since the end of the Transnistrian War in 1992. The region itself is often referred to as a relic of the Soviet Union, complete with a statue of Lenin in front of its parliament building. As a result, Transnistria can be viewed as one of the few remaining areas that is deeply entrenched in the Soviet sphere of influence. Over the years, as tensions and annexations in Eastern Europe have ebbed and flowed, so have concerns over conflict flaring in Transnistria. None of these concerns have resulted in tangible conflicts, but with the war in Ukraine seriously upending the status-quo, there seems a real possibility that Russia may jolt Transnistria out of its liminal state and into conflict.  

Skeptics of this argument would claim that Russia will not want to risk angering the West further by instigating violence in a second country. However, one must look back to February 2022 and realize that Russia fully intended to drag Moldova into its invasion of Ukraine. In late January of 2022, it was reported that Russia intended to pursue a false-flag operation in Eastern Ukraine, supposedly to justify what was at the time, a hypothetical invasion. If this plan had worked, it is not unfounded to say that Russian troops could have moved into Ukraine through Transnistria. American officials even went so far as to say that this operation could occur in Transnistria as well as in place of Eastern Ukraine. In March 2022, a photo showed Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in front of a war map wherein there appeared to be Russian troop movement into Transnistria from Odessa. So far, none of these scares have resulted in troop movement or violence in Transnistria- potentially because Russia has yet to formulate a feasible excuse to do so. While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is in flagrant violation of international law; Russia has stuck with its claims of “denazifying Ukraine” and “protecting the Russian minority” in Ukraine while also preventing Western encroachment via NATO expansion.   

In early 2023, news coming from Russia and Moldova told a story of a frozen conflict thawing out at a concerning rate. After President Zelenskyy’s announcement on February 9th, Russia moved quickly to deny these claims. However, these claims were soon corroborated by President Sandu who announced that Russia’s plans were to use foreign saboteurs to attack government buildings in Chisinau with the goal of creating violence and havoc in the city. Externally, Russia has started to increase the severity of the narrative involving Transnistria. On February 23rd, Russia stated that Ukraine intended to launch an invasion into Transnistria as retaliation for an “alleged” offensive by Russian troops from the territory of Transnistria.” The Russian Defense Ministry alleged that Ukraine was “amassing troops” along Ukraine’s border with Moldova and that this provocation posed a “direct threat to the Russian peacekeeping contingent legally deployed in Transnistria,” which Russia would protect if necessary. 

This builds to answer the question of how the existence of Transnistria may be reckoned with. Despite Russia’s leaked plans and thinly veiled threats, as of April 2023, it seems unlikely that Russia has the military capacity or wherewithal to successfully invade Transnistria and/or Moldova. As reported by The Economist in March 2023, Russia has had an estimated 60,000-70,000 fatalities in Ukraine since the start of the invasion in February 2022. Adding the additional soldiers who were wounded or missing brings the total losses to an estimated 200,000-250,000. For perspective, in the early days of the war, it was estimated that approximately 150,000 Russian troops had entered Ukraine. This would mean that approximately a year after the initial invasion, Russia has lost 100% of its initial troops plus anywhere from 50,000-100,000 more. The rate at which Russia is losing troops is also incredibly high; American General Mark Milley said in an interview, that an estimated 1,200 Russian soldiers were killed in a single day around the area of Bakhmut. Russia has also suffered heavy artillery losses, having lost 1,000 tanks with another 544 tanks captured by Ukrainian forces. These losses have accumulated to roughly 30% of Russia’s tank force. Oryx, an open-source monitoring website, calculates total Russian equipment losses at 9,100, while Ukraine’s total losses are estimated to be 2,934.  

It could be argued that Moldova does not have the military strength to fend off a potential Russian invasion regardless of Russia’s troop losses. Moldovan Armed Forces only consists of approximately 6,500 personnel with an additional 2,000 yearly conscripts. They also face a modernization issue. In October 2022, Moldovan Defense Minister Anatolie Nosatii said that roughly 90% of Moldova’s military equipment is of Soviet origin, ranging as far back as the 1960’s. However, it would be counter-productive for Russia to send forces to Transnistria when they are facing such significant troop and artillery loss in Ukraine.  Doing so would only further strain Russia’s army, diverting it away from Ukraine, and further Western involvement in the conflict.  

Now, why must the issue of Transnistria be dealt with? Most simply put- Moldova’s current westward trajectory is fundamentally incompatible with the existence of a Russian-occupied Soviet state.  

From the Russian perspective, there is Russia’s russkiy mir and sphere of influence ambitions. Russkiy mir or translated “Russian world” refers to a policy and cultural belief that all Russian speakers globally are part of Russian civilization and therefore must be protected against “persecution.” Unlike Ukraine, which has contended with conflicting claims over Kyivan Rus, Moldova has almost always been considerably distinct from Russia. The Principality of Moldavia was formed in 1346 and existed until 1859 when it formed with Wallachia, the geographical area of modern Romania. Today, the western section of Moldavia is part of Romania, and a portion of the eastern section is now Moldova. The Russian Empire did hold Bessarabia, a section of Moldavian territory in 1812, however it was ceded back in 1856. The native population spoke Romanian, although it was banned in 1836 as part of forced Russification. Stalin also mandated Moldovans to write Romanian in Cyrillic, a process which continued to drive a wedge between Moldova and its cultural ties to its western neighbor. As per the Moldovan 2014 census, (excluding Transnistria,) 4.1% of the population identified as Russian. In Transnistria, 29.1% identified as Russian. In the same census, 90.1% of Moldovans who reported to be religious self-identified as Eastern Orthodox; another key component of russkiy mir. With a respectable Russian minority and a majority Orthodox faith, Moldova, and more specifically Transnistria, have all the makings of a state to be incorporated into the “Russian World” that Putin so desires.  

With NATO expansion also being a key player in the Russo-Ukrainian conversation, it can argued that Russia is looking to prevent NATO expansion, and Western influence further eastward. As of 2022, Russia is surrounded by NATO on its western side. Despite Moldova being considerably smaller than Belarus or Ukraine, the “loss” of it to either NATO or the European Union would be antithetical to Russia’s desire to maintain and even expand its sphere of influence. Russkiy mir is even enshrined in Russia’s national security policies. The National Security Strategy outlines the perceived threat to russkiy mir as “the erosion of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values and the weakening of the unity of the Russian Federation’s multinational people by means of external cultural and information expansion (including the spread of poor-quality mass cultural products), propaganda of permissiveness and violence.”  Although the population of Transnistria is only 475, 373, it remains of symbolic importance to the Kremlin’s ideas of preserving Russian culture and influence.  

From the Moldovan perspective, the shift westward has already begun. The beginning of this change could be felt when Maia Sandu was first elected in 2020. Running on a pro-Western campaign, she won with 57.7% of the vote against Igor Dodon, who was backed by Russia. This was further reinforced with parliamentary election results in 2021. Sandu’s Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) won 63 of 101 seats in Parliament with 58% of the vote. The Party of Action and Solidarity is pro-European, and prior to the invasion of Ukraine had the long-term goal of Moldova’s accession to the European Union. The success of the PAS in the parliamentary elections was broadly considered to be detrimental to Russia’s influence in Moldova.  

The invasion of Ukraine has expedited Moldova’s political movement westward. In March, the Moldovan Parliament passed a bill which formally restored Moldova’s national language to Romanian. Although 80% of Moldovans speak Romanian as their native tongue, the official language of Moldova was legally “Moldovan” which remained until March 2023 as a cultural relic of Stalinism. While the linguistic differences between Romanian and Moldovan are negligible, the change in policy represents a substantial distancing of Moldova and its ties to Russia. Other significant policy maneuvers include submitting Moldova’s official application for European Union candidacy in the early days of the Russo-Ukrainian war. As of April, the European Union agreed to accelerate European Union-Moldovan entrance negotiations to take place before the end of 2023. 

While Sandu is facing falling approval rates because of high inflation and multiple energy crises; general approval of Moldova joining the European Union remains steady among the Moldovan population. The International Republican Institute’s Center for Insights in Survey Research reported that in November of 2022, 36% of Moldovans were reported to “strongly support” Moldova joining the European Union, and 27% “somewhat supported” this motion. In the municipality of Chisinau, 42% of respondents strongly supported accession, and 37% somewhat supported it. The study also showed that Moldovans believe the European Union is Moldova’s strongest political partner, with Romania placing second and Russia third. In 2019, The European Union and Russia were tied in the IRI’s data on top political partner to Moldova. In 2018, Russia placed higher than the European Union. While Russia remains of political importance in the eyes of Moldova, it clearly has been losing primacy to Moldova’s Western neighbors.  

However, the question of whether or not the issue of Transnistria can actually be solved remains.  

In October 2017 (the last year that the IRI asked about Transnistria in annual polling,) 70% of Moldovan respondents said that Transnistria should be a regular region in Moldova, without autonomous designation. This is the largest percentage since 2010, with numbers dipping as low as 48% in March 2016. This would indicate that Moldova would like to see Transnistria be reintegrated into Moldova. But what about Transnistria? Unsurprisingly, Transnistria has remained politically inclined towards Russia since its inception. Russia originally backed Transnistria during the civil war and has continuously provided economic support, despite not formally recognizing Transnistria’s statehood. After the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Transnistrian officials appealed to the Duma to consider accepting Transnistria into the Russian Federation. Political scientist Antoly Durin, who himself is from Transnistria, said of public opinion, “people here feel Russian. Not just as a nationality, but as a people who love Russia and want to be part of a Russian civilization.”  So, while Moldova, (as an entity separate from Transnistria,) does not wish to be part of the Russian world/russkiy mir, Transnistria regards itself as intrinsically Russian.  

This creates a scenario wherein the existence of Transnistria diametrically opposes Moldova. This opposition, combined with the economic and militaristic realities of Moldova, Transnistria and Russia means that despite all the posturing and polling numbers, Transnistria may very well remain frozen for the foreseeable future. There are multiple hypotheticals about what could happen, all under different sets of circumstances.  

The scenario wherein Transnistria agrees in diplomatic negotiations to be reabsorbed into Moldova is currently too unlikely to be discussed here.  

A second possibility is another civil war. Moldova could attempt to use military might to forcibly reunite Transnistria with Moldova. This scenario also seems unlikely. Any military action taken by Moldova that is “unprovoked” would greatly jeopardize Moldova’s foray into the Western European community. There has also been no rhetoric from the Moldovan government that would indicate a desire to utilize military action. In fact, the rhetoric has been the opposite, with Maia Sandu reaffirming her commitment to diplomatic resolution throughout her presidency. With Moldova facing a cost-of-living crisis, and increasing concerns over inflation, avoidable conflict would be highly unpopular. Additionally, Neither Moldova nor Transnistria have the military capacity to engage in unnecessary conflict. If there was conflict between them, Russia would likely get involved to support Transnistria. However, Russian involvement in a conflict would divert resources and attention away from Ukraine, which is of higher importance to Russia.  

The third scenario is that an economic collapse in Russia and/or Transnistria would force the dissolution or reintegration of Transnistria and Moldova. Transnistria has a semi-independent economy; however, it remains reliant on Russian support. As with other quasi-states, Russia acts as a “patron” of Transnistria and subsidizes a large portion of the Transnistrian economy. This allows Transnistria’s continued existence despite their lack of international recognition. In February of 2023, a leaked contract between Russian company Gazprom and Moldovan company Moldovagaz unveiled that Transnistria owes roughly 7 billion dollars in gas bills. Russia has continued to supply Transnistria with gas, even though (as of 2019,) Transnistria had not paid for gas since 2009. In Moldova, it costs approximately $1,000 per thousand cubic meters of gas. In Transnistria, the same amount of gas is estimated to cost around $168. Russia also provides millions annually to Transnistria in humanitarian support, which keeps the economy afloat. In the event of a Russian economic collapse, the Transnistrian economy theoretically could collapse as well. If Russia forces Transnistria to repay their gas debt, or can no longer subsidize the Transnistrian economy, the Transnistrian economy could give way. An economic collapse could force Transnistria to reintegrate into Moldova.  

However, a Russian economic collapse does not seem to be predicted any time soon. When Russia initially invaded Ukraine, it was predicted that the economy would contract by 10%. A contraction of 10% would have effectively crippled the Russian economy and potentially had rebound effects on the Transnistrian economy. However, heavy western sanctions have only been marginally successful in stifling the Russian economy. In the first 2023 fiscal quarter, the Russian economy contracted by 2.2%. Organizations like the International Monetary Fund are projecting that the Russian economy will recover in the coming year as a result of military production and mass amounts of state spending.  

So, what does all of this theorizing accumulate to?  

For better or worse, it seems that the situation is too tumultuous to make a long-term prediction. What can be said is that given the paradoxical nature of its existence, Transnistria will be stuck in its interjacent state until it is galvanized by external circumstances. As a quasi-state, it has not made any recent moves to change its status. Despite saying that they wish to join the Russian Federation, Transnistria has not properly attempted to join, nor provided military support to Russia.

In all, the answers to the question of Transnistria can only be found in due time. There is not a singular clear path for the future of Russia, Moldova, or Transnistria. Time will tell how the domino effect of events in Ukraine will play a role in the future of its neighbors. What can be said is that the global community must continue to monitor the situation in Transnistria. One day Transnistria will be called out of its intangible state, and when it is we must all watch with a critical eye. 

Heavy Metal Harvest: Impacts of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination on the Food and Health in China

nytimes.com

In ancient Chinese literature, one of the oldest and most influential pieces of divination text is the I Ching, or Book of Changes. It features the story of Shennong, the first Yan Emperor and the “Divine Husbandman”, who taught the Chinese people agriculture:

“When Pao Hsi’s clan was gone, there sprang up the clan of the Divine Husbandman. He split a piece of wood for a plowshare and bent a piece of wood for the plow handle, and taught the whole world the advantage of laying open the earth with a plow.”

- I Ching, Book II: The Material

It is likely the Divine Husbandman believed China would continue to use his knowledge to cultivate the land indefinitely. Thousands of years later, however, it is beginning to look like this will not be the case. Heavy metal soil contamination, caused mostly by industrial activity, means that the percentage of arable land in China is decreasing. This is increasing health risks of consuming crops grown in this poisonous soil and threatening the stability of the food chain as 

The origins of soil contamination

Before the 20th century, China was a completely agrarian society. However, the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spurred a new age of industrialization within the country. Development of the country came in several phases. Communist leader Mao Zedong ushered in the first phase with the first Five Year Plan (1953-57), the goal of which was to increase industrial production and output. The subsequent phase, called the Great Leap Forward (1958-1950), intended to continue advancement of industry within China. However, due to imbalances between industrial and agricultural growth and inflexibility of leadership, this plan was largely a failure. In fact, it caused the largest man made famine in history, killing an estimated 45 million people. 

In the 1960s the second Five-Year Plan was able to recover some of the devastation of the preceding years, but it wasn’t until Mao Zedong’s death and new leadership was assumed within the CCP that the country completely made up for their losses. Beginning in 1978, the Chinese Communist Party reformed their economic policy. The CCP targeted deficiencies and imbalances in production, with the goal of growing exports. Unlike previously, however, this time was met with success. For about the next 30 years, China’s economy would grow about 10% each year, bringing with it a whole slew of environmental issues. 

The uninterrupted expansion of China’s economy has since winded down, but the environmental impacts of that period of unchecked growth have not. One of the most pressing consequences of this has been heavy metal contamination of soil. Heavy metals are naturally present in soil in small quantities, however, certain human activities can introduce higher than normal levels into the soil. In 2013, the Ministry of Environmental Protection produced a book stating that one-sixth of China’s arable land - nearly 50 million acres - was polluted with dangerous metals like arsenic, cadmium, and nickel. This caused nationwide panic as the government had always kept information on the state of the environment tightly under wraps, leaving most people unaware of the true scale of pollution. But these “state secrets” were finally starting to reveal themselves and the true extent of heavy metal contamination was beginning to be uncovered.

Food chain dilemmas

China’s per capita land area is less than half of the world average, meaning that it cannot afford to lose any of that valuable property to pollution. So far, China has been able to utilize this small fraction of the world’ arable land to feed nearly 20% of the world’s population. The country produces ¼ of the world’s grain, reaching a 686.53 million ton output in 2022. In addition, it is the top global producer of cereals, fruit, vegetables, fishery products, meat, poultry, and eggs.  However, over the last two decades, China has begun to rely more and more on food imports, indicating that they are no longer able to produce a sufficient harvest to support their population. 

Heavy metal soil contamination is known to decrease productivity of cropland. Excess heavy metal in the soil is taken up into plants through their roots, accumulating and causing damage. They decrease seed germination, root elongation, plant biomass, and chlorophyll biosynthesis. 

In 2000, China’s food self-sufficiency ratio was at 93.6 percent. In 2022, it was 65.8 percent. The ratio is predicted to decrease about 10% more by 2030, largely in part to reduction of safely cultivable land. Still in the shadow of the famine caused by the Great Leap Forward, China cannot afford another food security crisis. Recent events have already begun to unveil how sensitive China is to food distribution disruptions. Supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic caused food shortages and frantic appeals from people starving under lockdown. More recently, the Russian war on Ukraine has again demonstrated China’s food instability. Ukraine is one of the largest corn exporting countries, and China is its biggest buyer. Ukrainian grain production suffered a heavy blow due to the Russia-Ukraine, and China was not left undisturbed by this. 

Health risks and “cancer villages”

A 2022 study found the main sources of soil heavy metal pollution in China to be metal mining and smelting, industrial activities, power generation, agricultural activities (e.g. utilization of fertilizer and animal manure), waste disposal, urban development, and transportation. Certain areas of the country constitute heavy metal contamination levels greater than others. Hunan Province in central China, for example, has some of the worst soil in the nation. This is mainly due to the area being a top provider of nonferrous metals. Byproducts associated with production of these metals, including industrial and mining wastewater, as well as dust released during mining and smelting, lead to toxic levels of heavy metals into the soil. This has severe implications as nonferrous metals are not the only major contribution of the region. Hunan Province also makes up around 15% of China’s rice production. In 2021, the region produced 26.83 million metric tons of rice. Grain samples collected and tested for heavy metals from various locations around China revealed that rice originating in Hunan Province contained the highest levels of cadmium and lead. In addition, several other provinces were discovered to have grain samples that contained greater than acceptable levels of multiple heavy metals. 

One could imagine the implications of crops being grown in such poisonous soil. Crop production does decrease from heavy metal contamination, but the plants that do survive will contain a dangerous accumulation to toxins. Humans who then consume these plants are exposed to their effects. For example, cadmium is a probable human carcinogen that also causes kidney disease and weakened bone structure after long periods of exposure. When ingested, it causes stomach irritation, vomiting, and diarrhea. Another example, lead, is a probable human carcinogen and that can accumulate over time, wreaking havoc on the body. It is especially detrimental to young children, causing brain and nervous system damage, learning disabilities, delayed growth and development, and hearing and speech problems. For both lead and cadmium poisoning, there are no cures, with the only available option being to manage symptoms as they arise. Other heavy metals cause similarly disastrous effects. 

Many studies done in China have suggested higher health risks associated with heavy metal soil pollution in China. Some of the most pressing evidence comes from the so-called “cancer villages”. Various sources claim that there are around 400-500 different cancer villages in China, which are locations in which an unusually high level of cancer cases are recorded, most likely having to do with environmental problems. These villages first started appearing in the 1980s, which coincides with the time when the Chinese Communist Party revamped their economic policy and industrialization really began to take off. The Chinese government has admitted to the existence of these villages, but has continued to keep information about them shielded from the public. A 2015 study attempted to use the limited available data on these villages to create a map of their locations. They concluded that cancer villages tended to cluster around major rivers and their tributaries, almost always densely populated and near industry facilities. In addition, the researchers noted that the highest levels of cancer morbidity came from grain producing regions in China. Hunan Province was one such region where the densest locations of cancer villages were found. 

Current efforts and future actions

In February of 2015, the documentary “Under the Dome” went viral in China, revealing shocking portrayals of soil contamination, as well as air and water pollution, within the country. Within one month the Chinese government blocked access to the film. This extreme censorship makes it very difficult to gauge the levels of heavy metal soil contamination in China, let alone solve it. Despite this, it seems like the government is beginning to understand the severity of soil contamination within the country. In 2019, the Chinese government declared a “farmland redline” policy stating that China’s total arable land should never fall below 120 million hectares. In February of 2022, the government announced the first national soil survey in 40 years. The survey will take more than four years to complete, but when finished it should give the country a better understanding of what they are dealing with.

The future of China’s soil in the face of heavy metal soil contamination is largely unknown. We do not know for sure whether the country will fully commit to their pledge of reversing the damage caused by industrialization and heavy agriculture. It remains to be seen whether Shennong, the Father of Agriculture’s, legacy will remain within the soils of China.

The Ghosts of Past and Present - Why the US and Iran Can’t Find a Way to Revive the Iran Nuclear Deal, and its Haunting Implications

How long does it take to bring a treaty back to life? As diplomats from Iran and the United States work to renew a version of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, they are finding out that the answer may be longer than the world would have expected - and longer than it can afford. Tehran and Washington continue to duck in and out of negotiations as pressure from their constituents and their people continues to mount. Disappearing and appearing like apparitions, the two have left political analysts puzzled about the prospect of new nuclear policy. Although 2023 has marked a promising turn of events in rekindling diplomatic relations between the two after eight years of hostility, disagreements and demands small and large keep the two powers from coming together to revive their 2015 deal.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was an agreement between Iran and member nations of the UN Security Council in collaboration with the EU. Encompassing issues from uranium enrichment to sanctions relief, it was able to broadly address the various complexities of the situation at that time. The 2015 deal made significant strides towards limiting Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities: it saw strict restrictions on the construction of nuclear centrifuges, limits on uranium enrichment and plutonium, two key components powering nuclear warheads, and an extensive monitoring and verification system, amongst other terms. In return for Iran’s compliance with these requirements, many of the sanctions levied against the nation by the EU, US, and UN would be raised, and progress would be made towards lifting the arms embargo on Iran’s transfer of military weaponry. 

Two years after taking office, however, former President Donald Trump terminated US involvement in the deal, calling it “defective at its core.” Spurred on by hardline Congressional Republicans who claimed the 2015 negotiations represented a striking loss of ground and a sullying of American power on the world stage, he cut diplomatic ties with Iran and reinstated crippling sanctions on the nation’s trade capabilities. According to UN reports, European leaders and UN representatives condemned Trump for abandoning a commitment to global security. Meanwhile, Iran itself lamented the US’s departure from the agreement, with then-President Rouhani pledging to continue to abide by its terms in the hopes that cooperation may be revived. In the years following the 2018 scuffle, Iran struggled to find its direction for the future.

Their direction was charted in 2021 with the election of President Ebrahim Raisi. A political hardliner and staunch combatant of Western influence, Raisi’s nuclear policies are in striking contrast to those of his relatively progressive predecessor. The US Institute of Peace has estimated that within the first year of his leadership, Iran had exceeded the amount of enriched uranium permitted by the 2015 deal by over 18 times. Particles enriched up to 84% were found in late 2022, per a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); these levels draw dangerously close to the 90% purity mark necessary for its use in a nuclear warhead. 

Rather than quell proliferation efforts, the past year’s negotiation attempts seem to have only further fueled Iran’s dash towards nuclear capabilities. In August of 2022, talks between Tehran and Washington nearly resulted in a deal that would restore key components of the JCPOA. Negotiations fell apart at the last minute due to disagreements over investigation and verification practices, however, and by November of that year, Iran had unveiled plans for the construction of fourteen new nuclear centrifuges. In a blatant nod towards the failure of the summer 2022 talks, the government also suspended safeguard arrangements, rendering nuclear energy inspectors from the IAEA unable to access and determine the status of Iran’s centrifuge workshops and uranium mines. 

The threat of Iran holding nuclear warheads extends beyond distrust of the government’s intentions or the paranoia of other world leaders, although both play a meaningful role in the issue. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy points to the potential for an arms race to break out as other Middle Eastern nations seek defensive measures against Iranian nuclear weapons. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has stated unequivocally his intentions to begin nuclear proliferation should Iran obtain a bomb. “If they get one, we have to get one,” he posited in a recent interview, citing their need to maintain balance of power in the region. A nuclear arms race in a region already rocked by conflict and instability has the potential to produce catastrophic consequences; thus, a nuclear-armed Iran must be looked at in the context of other key players in the region.

Issues also lie within the nation itself. Tehran is known to be one of the most notorious state sponsors of terrorism, having been found providing groups like Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons and funding. For the government of Iran to possess large amounts of weapons grade uranium means the risk of some of it ending up, intentionally or not, in the hands of terrorist organizations. If they are able to construct even small-scale, rudimentary nuclear weaponry, these groups would shatter the nuclear security of the world like a glass pane, rendering established concepts like “mutually assured destruction” and “no-first-use” inapplicable. The scope of the danger of terrorism would explode, driven by the threat of future attacks that are unprecedented in death and destruction. 

As world leaders grapple with these possibilities, looking to the UN Security Council to intervene, US President Joe Biden has seen diplomatic efforts hindered by conflicting interests within government. Hardline Congressional republicans, many still proponents of Trump-era political sentiments, have criticized the Biden administration for participating in negotiations with Iran in the first place. They argue that the US has already afforded Iran far too many concessions and that compromising with the Iranian government would represent a significant blow to America’s image and perceived power on the world stage. Just last year, forty-nine out of the fifty Republican senators in office pledged to vote against any revived version of the JCPOA unless its terms are akin to that of a harsh crackdown, placing strain on Iran’s self-determination and their allocation of resources. Promoting this iron-fisted approach in lieu of collaboration has, as in years past, antagonized diplomats in Tehran and left multiple empty seats at recent attempted peace summits. Given that any new deal would have to gain a ⅔ majority for approval and confirmation, the Biden administration faces the puzzling task of forging a deal that would be amenable to both its domestic constituents and to the Iranian government.

President Raisi faces similar struggles in reconciling disputes with Iranian legislators. Despite his belligerent political reputation, the leader of Iran has begun to demonstrate a willingness to participate in peace talks, understanding the importance of extending communication with the West after a challenging past few years. After the US abandoned the JCPOA in 2018, sanctions levied by the Trump administration plunged Iran into a deep, lengthy two-year recession. One of the world’s largest exporters of energy, Iran’s sales of oil and gas across the world represent a whopping 47% of its national revenue and comprises 1/5th of its foreign exports, making it a prime target for strict embargos. Their economic woes worsened as EU nations joined in to implement more restrictions, angered by Raisi’s efforts to reinvigorate his country’s nuclear program. The extent of trade sanctions were staggering: Iran exported an average of 2.1 million barrels of crude oil each day while the JCPOA was in effect. Post-2018 restrictions saw this rate plummet to just one hundred thousand barrels daily. Coupled with social and economic strife from the Covid-19 pandemic, government officials have recognized the pressing need to finalize a resolution that would grant them relief from Western sanctions.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a branch of the Iranian armed forces with significant influence in government and policy-making, however, remain staunchly opposed to cooperation with the global West. They claim that retaining control of their nuclear program is essential to Iran’s national autonomy and dignity. These ideas echo the sentiments of other non-nuclear regimes across the world who seek nuclear capabilities, citing their importance in deterring attacks from foreign adversaries, maintaining national security, and balancing out global power inequities. Iran, in particular, emphasizes their precarious position in a highly volatile Middle East, arguing that their nuclear program will act only as a mechanism of protection and national defense. 

Due to Iran’s bifurcated government structure, Raisi’s administration also has to contend with the interests of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds the final say in all matters of domestic and foreign policy and who, unfortunately for world leaders, stands by the Revolutionary Guards in opposing compromise with the US. At each turn in negotiations, Khamenei has fended off proposals and pledged not to sign an agreement until significant concessions are provided to bolster Iran’s power - that is, the complete lifting of sanctions, the reintegration of Iran into the world financial system, and a decrease in oversight regulations demanded by the US. With Iranian interest groups attempting to stretch their benefits beyond even the scope of the 2015 Nuclear Deal and US congressional Republicans hesitant to even approach the JCPOA’s level of compromise, negotiations and even informal talks between the two leaders drag on without resolution. With the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the outbreak of war in the Gaza Strip region, the diplomats on either side have had to table their efforts to revive an agreement, dashing global hopes that a rekindling of communication between Iran and the US will translate into a new frontier in nuclear security.

Today, debate continues over whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action could be deemed successful. Critics argue that the deal provided Iran too many concessions because it still permitted some quantities of uranium enrichment. Proponents, on the other hand, point to the agreement’s unprecedented verification system, which ensured there would never be enough resources available for an Iranian warhead. Regardless, it remains the only comprehensive and successful approach towards preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran in history, and today’s no-deal world faces pressing dangers as relations between the parties break down, economic strain from sanctions mount, and nuclear operations in Iran continue at a faster rate than ever. Despite popping in and out of negotiations repeatedly, the two phantom-like powers seem unable to reach a point of alignment in their paranormal game of peek-a-boo, never sticking around long enough to work together and form a resolution. Until they emerge from the shadows and meet in the middle, the world will have to continue with bated breath for an answer to their question - how long will it take to resurrect the Iran Nuclear Deal? And if they stop playing altogether and the ghost of the JCPOA fades away, they will never get an answer; instead, they will face even more daunting questions and haunting uncertainties regarding the state of global security itself.

The United States and China: A Cyclical Relationship, Both Backwards and Beyond

nytimes.com

The relationship between China and the United States is akin to a circle. Tensions rise, are broken, and rise again. It is a pattern that has continued for decades; the divide between the countries is palpable. But the United States and China are more alike than reported. The countries are fundamentally similar in economic and military policies; China’s problems are ours. Examining U.S.-China relationship history and investigating and addressing these issues is the key to mending the U.S.-China relationship and fixing cardinal issues in the modern United States.

When asked about China, Americans report undoubtedly strong opinions. A poll concerning the global superpower found that 67% of Americans have negative opinions of China. Even more striking, 89% of Americans now classify China as a competitor or an enemy. When asked, “What’s the first thing you think about when you think of China?”, responses overwhelmingly leaned towards human rights and the economy (each issue making up 20% and 19% of responses, respectively). With only 15% of U.S. citizens viewing it favorably, it is time to re-examine U.S.-China tensions to repair future relations.

These numbers do not manifest from thin air. They are a cumulation of decades of nervous tension between the United States and China, leading to prominent unease among U.S. citizens. The two countries have endured a rocky relationship since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Soon after, hostility rose during North Korea’s 1950 invasion of South Korea, when U.S. troops aiding South Korea approached the Chinese border. Although the United Nations, China, and North Korea signed an armistice agreement in 1953, this strain initiated a long pattern of U.S.-China tension. 

By 1964, the stress went nuclear. In October of that year, China conducted its first atomic bomb test. The test exacerbated the already tense U.S.-Sino relationship amid conflict in Vietnam. Relationships improved after China and Russia’s Sino-Soviet split, with Beijing mending connections and cordiality with the United States. President Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, signing the Shanghai Communiqué, a document representing the first official diplomatic communications between the countries. Presidents Carter and Reagan continued the pattern of diplomacy through the 1980’s, maintaining a cooperative relationship with China. For almost twenty years, the U.S.-China relationship thrived. 

Unfortunately, peace was not enduring. In 1989, after military troops killed hundreds of student protestors during Beijing’s Tiananmen Square Massacre, the United States immediately froze relations with China, suspending the only recently approved sale of U.S. military equipment to Beijing. It was not until 1993, when President Bill Clinton propelled a policy of “constructive engagement” with China, that unease began to lift. By 1996, the capitals agreed to exchange diplomatic officials again, and in 2001, President Clinton signed the U.S.-China Relations Act that gave Beijing permanent trade relations with the United States. Once again, peace fractured in 2005. An American reconnaissance plane made an emergency landing on Chinese territory after colliding with a Chinese fighter. The U.S. crew members were detained on Hainan Island for twelve days. Only after a tense standoff did Chinese authorities release the American detainees. China experienced a significant leadership turnover in 2012, with approximately 70% of leadership body members replaced after the new election. It was also the year Xi Jinping assumed power as President, delivering speeches promising a “rejuvenation” of China. This turnover was shortly followed by President Obama’s 2013 effort to ease U.S.-China relations. He hosted President Xi for a California summit where the executives established a “new model” of relations. This presidential friendliness stuck around after the 2016 election. In 2017, President Trump hosted President Xi for a meeting to build relations and promised “tremendous progress.” Progress, however, did not last.

Throughout 2018 and 2019, tariffs on Chinese imports enforced by the Trump administration hit China hard. The Chinese government fights back with tariffs of its own, fanning the flames of a U.S.-China trade war. Although tensions eased after President Trump and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He signed the “Phase One” trade deal in January 2020, they quickly seized again several months later during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both administrations blamed the other for their mishandling of the disaster. For the remainder of the Trump administration, this anger remains. Shortly after he took office, President Biden stressed the need for U.S. infrastructure to compete with China, maintaining Trump-era ideologies. After Russian-related disagreements sparked further tension, Presidents Biden and Xi eventually sought relationship repair in November of 2022. Speaking at the Bali G20 summit, the leaders expressed their wishes to alleviate hostility.

When this history is analyzed, a pattern emerges: China and the United States butt heads over an infraction on the part of the other. A new U.S. President is elected, who tries to ease tensions and foster a healthy diplomatic relationship with China. An inciting incident (i.e., the expulsion of American journalists or the spotting of a potential spy balloon) severs that friendliness, and tensions rise again. Each country demonstrates power and influence by implementing trade tariffs and making threats. And the cycle repeats itself. 

Documenting a clear pattern of behavior allows everyday citizens and politicians alike to analyze relations and make predictions accordingly. However, it makes for an easy trap to fall into, time and time again. If conflict is viewed as inevitable, that defeatist attitude will permeate international relations and allow tension to be viewed as the natural outcome. In recent headlines, an alleged “spy balloon” originating from China was shot down in U.S. airspace in February of 2023. It contained what U.S. officials defined as intel-gathering equipment, which the Chinese government vehemently denied, describing as a civilian meteorological airship. Regardless of the specifics, this incident indicates newfound strain, with more to come. Once again, we see the pattern emerge. In order for the pattern to be broken, the cycle needs to be stopped in its tracks. 

The key to stopping the cycle is analyzing the United States and China differently. We must ditch the old analysis model and replace it with a novel system: parallels. Instead of focusing on the rise and fall of strained relations, key similarities must be examined. Unsurprisingly, U.S.-China differences are highlighted more predominantly than their likenesses. After almost eight decades of frosty relations, the United States and China seem like separate entities. But maintaining that distinction only worsens the long-standing tension. Simultaneously, it will only exacerbate problems within the United States in the long run. Relationship difficulties should not be an “us vs. them” approach. It hasn’t worked in all these decades; there’s no reason to believe it will work in the future. The focus needs to be on collaboration after matching problems are identified.

 In 2007, China announced a military budget increase of 18%, continuing China’s increasing military expenditures and bringing their total spending allowance to 62.14 billion USD. This aligned with the United State’s budget increase at the time. By 2007, the U.S.’s military budget had expanded to 589.59 billion dollars, a 269.5 billion increase from 2000. In 2023, the United States' military budget sits at 800.67 billion USD, while China boasts one the largest military budgets worldwide at 224 billion USD. In addition to military spending, the economies of the United States and China share a prominent global role. As of 2023, they hold the top two spots by gross domestic product (GDP). These economies, primarily centered around military spending, hold significant weight worldwide. China and the United States are uniquely positioned in that they hold major international influence. They reflect each other’s values, but this reflective relationship is not represented in United States media despite these crucial similarities. Additionally, on September 28th, 2023, The Seattle Times posted an article detailing China’s recent property crisis. It outlines how developers are hurting as apartment sales dwindle. Real estate stocks are plummeting, and house hunting is difficult. Conditions are similar in the United States. Real estate prices are skyrocketing, and becoming a homeowner is less feasible than ever. These economic problems in each country mirror each other. Acknowledging similarities such as these breaks the cycle that builds and protracts the us-them mentality. When the problems are examined, it becomes a matter of “us vs. them” problems.

There is a fear, however, surrounding that acknowledgment. A fear of the countries being “alike.” This fear is built off of the “us vs. them” mentality that, to this day, dominates United States coverage of China. Decades of U.S. communism placed into historical context explain this. Communism is a hot-button topic in the United States. Post World War 2, a “Red Scare,” or fear of a communist threat, plagued the United States, aligning with the ongoing Cold War with the then Soviet Union. As hysteria over a USSR takeover grew, communism became synonymous with “un-American.” Communist fear has been hammered into U.S. culture for over a century. Now consider the fact that the People’s Republic of China has been a communist regime since its founding in 1949. It makes sense that to Americans, acknowledging that the United States and China share fundamental problems is akin to anti-patriotism. To admit the countries share those issues is to admit they are fundamentally similar. And when China is identified with communism, that threatens the American paradigm. 

This fear exacerbates the cyclical relationship and will kill any hope for future long-term civility. Right now, relations between the United States and China seem uncertain. On October 10th, Newsweek reported that Chinese vessels entered territorial waters surrounding Japanese-controlled islands. Any attack on these islands (or any Japanese government assets) would require the United States to respond and aid Japan, launching troops against China. Where is there to go from here? Perhaps the cycle of tear and repair will continue. But perhaps not. It is up to everyone, from politicians to the layman alike, to make this change. Acknowledging the similar plights the countries face is the key to creating a long-term, sustainable relationship that works for all parties. But that is, ultimately, up to each country’s leadership. Let’s hope they make the right choice.

Ya es Tiempo de Aprender Otro Idioma: Expanding Access to Internationalized K-12 Education in the U.S.

“Why have we normalized that we are primarily a monolingual country – even though our nation has only become more multicultural, more interdependent with the rest of the world? Why is it that in 2023, in many school systems in our country, we treat our English learners as students with deficits – rather than assets in a globally competitive world?” These were the questions U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona asked at the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) 52nd Annual International Bilingual and Bicultural Education Conference. While it is impossible to formulate a simple answer to these questions, it is clearer now in 2023 than any other time in the twenty-first century that school reform has become an overwhelmingly polarizing issue with little bipartisan agreement over policies, resource allocation, or school reform. In an increasingly competitive marketplace of education reform ideas, internationalized K-12 education finds itself moderately supported but ultimately neglected due to “more pressing” issues within the education landscape, such as COVID-related learning loss and addressing political polarization. One could argue that doubling down on Mandarin classes for middle schoolers who are grade levels below their expected math proficiency should be somewhere at the bottom of our most vital education reform ideas, but this could not be further from the truth. As demand for school reform grows and new education policies are rapidly proposed and implemented, expanding access to internationalized K-12 education must be prioritized by the federal government, state governments, and schools.
From learning loss recovery policies to school voucher programs, recent U.S. education policies aimed at fixing what has been broken have been prioritized over revitalization efforts. Policymakers look at “failing” inner-city schools and see an emergency that must be fixed rather than a hub of resilience, innovation, and multicultural expertise waiting to be plugged into our globalized society. Within a damage-centered framework, U.S. K-12 students have lost too much learning from COVID-19 to be focusing on much else beyond meeting basic grade-level requirements, and the best path forward is ensuring students “catch up” by focusing solely on literacy and math proficiency. This damage-centered framework would also lead us to believe increased family-school tension and polarization are irreparable, and the best path forward is a school voucher system that allows families and educators to self-sort into private schools most aligned with their views. As any educator will understand, however, there is rarely ever one right way to solve a problem, and the current zeitgeist of the 2020s calls for the prioritization of internationalized K-12 education policies that work to creatively and equitably address a myriad of issues including but not limited to COVID-related learning loss and polarization. To America, Dr. Cardona passionately called for the bringing in of a “new era of multilingualism,” and to students? “¡Ya es tiempo de aprender otro idioma!”

Conceptualizing Internationalized Education

Internationalized education can be described as “a process of incorporating international, intercultural, and global perspectives into different education contexts.” Framed as a necessary tool to sculpt young Americans into globally competitive citizens, internationalized education remains very popular in higher education institutions. Internationalized education materialized in the K-12 sector through the creation of private, internationally-minded schools. With the purpose of internationalized education being framed as primarily economic, policymakers and school leaders seemingly had little reason to support expanding access to internationalized education for poor students. International schools first came into existence with the goal of engaging in missionary activities and colonization, and while the restricted access of Black and Brown students to language classes and K-12 study abroad problematizes the claim that international schools have changed drastically from their exclusionary roots, internationalized curricula and programs can be seen in both private and public schools today. It is precisely this - the internationalized public school - that has the power to redirect the path that U.S. education reform is heading from deepening polarization and further inequities to a generation of multilingual, globally competent Americans. 

Access to dual-language immersion programs, K-12 study abroad opportunities, and instruction from educators with a global perspective not only increase economic outcomes and career opportunities for students but also help develop students’ social and emotional development in cross-cultural settings, reduce polarization, and increase a sense of belonging and excitement within school communities. Amid the growing implementation of school voucher programs and pressure on “failing schools” to increase test scores, refraining from incorporating internationalized education into public K-12 schools across the U.S. will only make our next generation of global ambassadors more homogenous. If the federal government, state governments, and schools work together to rapidly implement education policies that prioritize expanding access to internationalized education for all students, it is very likely that the most pressing educational issues of our time will be thoroughly addressed in the process.

Federal Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

As the federal government navigates internationalized education reform, the priority must be well-informed but hands-off investments in public K-12 schools and making international partnerships. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how innovative and effective schools can be even in dismal circumstances. From Kansas’s use of COVID-19 relief funds to offset the cost of field trips to museums and historical sites to South Carolina using the funds to make school bus Wi-Fi a reality, it is evident that states have different needs and are most innovative when policies are imagined using a bottom-up approach as opposed to top-down. To expand access to internationalized education in public K-12 schools, the federal government should invest in well-informed but hands-off grant programs for state education departments to use within their public school systems. A competitive global education grant program, accompanied with comprehensive monitoring and evaluating practices, will give states the capital they need to ensure stronger multilingualism and global educational opportunities in public schools while still having the freedom to address their own state-wide or community-wide needs. Additionally, the federal government should prioritize working with other countries’ education ministries as well as international education organizations from other regions to connect states’ education department leaders with international perspectives and policy suggestions. These ideas can then be used to inform and inspire leaders at the community or city level to use grant funds for expanding globalized education access in ways previously not considered. Global cooperation between the U.S. Department of Education with other countries’ education ministries will set the foundation for comprehensive, globally-minded R&D on K-12 internationalized education initiatives in the U.S.

State Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

State governments play an essential role in expanding student access to quality internationalized education in a public school setting. Moving forward, it is vital for states to not only implement education policies that address COVID-related learning loss but also policies that increase students’ global competency and language skills. While some may argue falling literacy and math proficiency scores are proof that language skills need to be put on the back burner for now, there is data that dual language immersion boosts proficiency in other subjects for both English-speaking and ESL students. Not only are other academic subjects bolstered but dual language programs increase friendship and cultural competency between students of different racial or cultural backgrounds and increase overall confidence. When states neglect language immersion for “failing” schools, they often end up barring predominantly lower-income Black and Brown students from the internationalized education that sets so many upper-income white students up for success at the collegiate and vocational level. State governments must prioritize education policies that incentivize private-public school collaboration to put public schools in conversation with international schools within their state. This can also look like incentivizing state colleges to work with local K-12 public schools to grow language immersion programs or allow for high school students to audit college courses on intercultural communication and global politics. Additionally, states should center internationalized education at the core of their teacher shortage efforts. This could look like teacher pipeline programs that incentivize bilingual adults or immigrants within the state to pursue a teaching role through lowered teaching requirements at public schools and a pipeline that leads to these teachers earning a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in education.

School Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

At the school level, low-cost policies can still lead to high-impact results when it comes to making internationalized education a reality for all students. Dual-language programs have been extremely successful in providing English-speaking and ESL students the opportunity to hone their language skills, build cross-cultural friendships, and gain tutoring experience. School districts can also reward student engagement in cross-cultural contexts or with language programs through biliteracy or bicultural certificates. A certificate program could function in a cohort-based model with a lead teacher mentoring students seeking biliteracy in or outside the classroom. Other school policies could include investing in a more internationalized library, organizing dual language exchange programs for parents and teachers, supporting student efforts to obtain passports for study abroad, prioritizing the hiring of bilingual community members and family members when filling part-time school positions, emphasizing teacher professional development on bilingual students as assets not deficits or tools, and ensuring students on vocational or technical tracks can still engage in internationalized education through work with immigrant-owned businesses and professionals in the community.

Conclusion

From polarizing international events being broadcast everyday on the news to deepening disparities in graduation and attendance among students across the country, the current zeitgeist of 2023 can be used to implement successful and equitable expansion of internationalized K-12 education that has the potential to address COVID-related learning loss, fill teacher shortages, increase global cooperation, and reduce polarization. With school voucher systems becoming more commonplace across states and family dissatisfaction with public schools on the rise, it is vital that public school innovation and autonomy in addition to family-school engagement is incentivized and encouraged at the federal and state education policy level. Internationalized public education proves to be an overlooked but much-needed reform strategy that may look different in each school or state but could ultimately unify America’s students as they grow up in a world more globalized and interconnected than ever before. Upper-income private school students can no longer be the only young Americans engaging in internationalized education in 2023. A global education must be accessible to all students. With the right policies from the federal and state government in accompaniment with innovative school policies, teachers can confidently tell their students: “¡Ya es tiempo de aprender otro idioma!”

The Most Violent Police Force in Europe: Police Brutality in France

theguardian.com

“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.” This phrase, meaning “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” first appeared during the French Revolution of 1848 and has since become entrenched in the history of France. It is part of their current constitution and is considered to be a central piece of French heritage; however, France has yet to successfully live up to this promise, due in part to deeply entrenched institutional racism. One dangerous manifestation of this racism is in the country’s policing. French police officers are more heavily armed than any other police force in Europe and, in recent years, they have also been the most aggressive. Since 2022, French police officers have killed 15 people during traffic stops. Most recently, on June 27, 2023, a 17-year-old boy named Nahel Merzouk was shot in the chest at point-blank range by a French police officer during a traffic stop in Paris. The police officers claimed that Merzouk (who is of Algerian descent) had been physically threatening them with his car; however, witness statements and video footage told a different story. According to passengers in the car at the time of the shooting, the two police officers pulled up on motorcycles next to their car in stand-still traffic after Merzouk, who was too young to have a license, failed to stop for them. One passenger claimed that the officers took turns hitting Merzouk with the butt-ends of their rifles while they threatened to shoot him. On the third hit, the witness recounted that Merzouk let go of the brake pedal, causing the car to restart. It was at this moment that one of the officers fatally shot the teenager, causing the car to continue to accelerate until it crashed. Merzouk was pronounced dead at the scene. Merzouk’s mother believes the shooting was racially motivated, having said the officer “saw an Arab face, a little kid, and wanted to take his life.” The murder of Merzouk sparked nation-wide protests against racially-motivated police brutality. President Macron responded to the protests by employing heavy police presences, which resulted in the arrests of over 3,600 people. Still, Macron was quick to condemn the murder of Merzouk and one of the police officers involved in Merzouk’s death has been charged with voluntary homicide. However, proponents of racial justice movements in France point out that this incident is part of a larger pattern of excessive use of force by police officers in which police officers are rarely charged.

Police brutality in France has been a heated topic of discussion for years. It first became a major political issue after the gilets jaunes (meaning “yellow vests” in English) protests in 2018 and 2019, in which French workers with long commutes took to the streets in yellow vests to protest against the proposed rise in diesel taxes. The movement slowly transformed into a larger movement against President Macron’s general economic decisions, and, at its peak, 285,000 people were protesting across France. During these protests, around 2,500 protesters were injured (some losing eyes and limbs) in violent encounters with police. While this led to a smaller movement calling for a ban on police use of explosive grenades and rubber bullets, government representatives argued that this use of force was necessary because, while the overwhelming majority of protesters were peaceful, some did turn to acts of vandalism and violence. In fact, the French Ministry of the Interior reported that around 1,800 security personnel were injured in the protests. In response, Lauren Nuñez, Secretary of State to the Minister of the Interior from 2018 to 2020, expressed that he had no regrets about the use of force against protesters and stated that “Just because a hand has been torn off or an eye damaged doesn’t mean that this [response] is illegal. Above all, it’s important to make it clear that it’s not acceptable for police officers to be attacked in a violent manner by those wishing to express their convictions.” The general argument made by those supporting the police is that police officers are using an appropriate amount of force because some of the protests have turned into riots with significant property damage. They argue that police officers must use teargas and other weapons to protect themselves and to quell the riots in order to protect French society.

While some excuse the violence perpetrated by French police in response to the gilets jaunes protests as a necessary evil, others like Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe (an international human rights organization), have argued that police brutality is never acceptable. In response to police violence committed during anti-pension reform protests in March of 2023, Mijatovic stated “violent incidents have occurred, some of which have targeted the forces of law and order. But sporadic acts of violence by some demonstrators or other reprehensible acts committed by others during a protest cannot justify excessive use of force by agents of the state.” French police forces have demonstrated a pattern of increasingly violent behavior, especially in regards to their handling of protests and demonstrations. From March through May of 2023, French police forces were criticized for their excessive use of force against protesters during the anti-pension reform demonstrations as some felt that the heavy police presence at the protests escalated the potential for violence. On March 25, 2023, police officers engaged in another polarizing, violent confrontation with protesters during a separate demonstration in Sainte-Soline over environmental concerns. During this confrontation, police officers launched tear-gas grenades at protesters, injuring 200 demonstrators and sending one demonstrator into a coma with life-threatening injuries. Similarly to the anti-pension reform protesters, protesters at Sainte-Soline blamed the police presence for the violence that erupted. An engineering student (referred to as David) who was present at the protests said, “This is the first time I have attended a demonstration that was this violent, but, in fact, the violence did not come from the protestors. It was violent because the police were violent.” Human rights organizations have increasingly raised alarms over police violence in France as they use aggressive crowd control tactics even against peaceful protesters. French police forces have been criticized for using weapons that are often banned elsewhere, including flashballs, grenades, water cannons, batons, and firearms. These weapons exacerbate the risk of injury at the hands of an overzealous, potentially aggressive police force.

While police forces in France have been criticized for racial biases in their application of force, this violence does not exist in a vacuum. It is heavily influenced by the larger social dynamics and stigmas present in French society, which include racial and religious biases against minority groups. In a study presented to the French national assembly by the Representative Council of France's Black Associations, 9 in 10 Black people in France reported experiencing racial discrimination. This racial prejudice manifests in a variety of ways, including in the country’s policing practices. The Défenseur des droits, an independent constitutional authority in France, found in a 2017 study that a young man who is perceived to be Black or Arab is 20 times more likely to be stopped than other members of the French population. However, these French racial biases do not only manifest in policing policies. For example, recent public discourse has revolved heavily around discriminatory educational practices. France has strict laws banning religious symbols in public schools. The French government justifies these laws by arguing that they are necessary to promote secularism; however, they have a disparate impact on Muslim students and are often said to be targeted to restrict the wearing of hijabs and other articles of clothing associated with Muslim students. Most recently, in August of 2023, the Minister of Education Gabriel Attal announced that students will no longer be allowed to wear abayas in schools. Abayas are long, loose traditional dresses worn primarily in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. This decision caused outrage since there is no direct link between abayas and Islam, so these dresses could be considered a cultural item rather than a religious one. France has attempted to guard against racial biases by creating laws without explicit mention of people's race; however, this does not prevent laws from disproportionately impacting minority communities. The French police can provide information on how many people have been killed by police officers; however, they cannot provide information on the race of those victims because it is illegal to collect that information in France. The French government’s attempts to create color-blind laws ignores the realities of life in France for minorities. It exacerbates the problem of racial injustice because it strips the oppressed of the ability to quantify their oppression as a weapon to combat it.

Still, some are working to combat racial prejudice in policing. In 2021, six French and international human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Open Society Justice initiative, filed the first class-action lawsuit against French police forces in which the plaintiffs are asking for mandatory police reform. This lawsuit, heard by the Conseil d’État (the highest administrative authority in France), began proceedings on September 29, 2023. The plaintiffs argued that there is significant, systemic discrimination in police action, including racial profiling and discriminatory identity checks. On October 11, 2023, the court found that police activities surrounding racial profiling in identity checks did constitute discrimination and were not “limited to isolated cases”. However, the court did not impose measures to force the French government to end these discriminatory practices because the court said it did not have the authority to change political policy. While this decision was disappointing to proponents of this case, the court did recognize the repeated abuses of identity checks in policing as racial discrimination. This is significant because some political leaders have historically denied the notion that racial discrimination exists in policing at all. For this reason, it is possible that proponents of racial justice in France could still use this finding to force their political leaders to confront the realities of racial inequality in France and enact some real change.

A $6 Billion Deal: The US-Iran Prisoner Swap

aljazeera.com

On September 19th, five Americans returned home after being imprisoned, some for years, in Iran. Their return was swapped for the five Iranians held in U.S. custody–accused of violating U.S. sanctions– along with the unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue funds. After two years of volatile negotiations, President Biden said the swap was finally executed bringing innocent Americans home. However, the deal garnered much criticism from Republicans claiming the release of billions in Iranian oil revenue would only incentivize the capturing of more Americans. 

The swap was cautiously arranged with mediated talks between the U.S. and Iran through Qatar when the oil revenue funds were successfully transferred to banks in Doha. When the transfer was confirmed, the five U.S. prisoners departed on a Qatari plane from Tehran– Iran’s capital– while simultaneously, two of the Iranians in U.S. custody arrived in Doha on their route home. Three of the five Iranian hostages chose to not return to Iran. 

Businessmen Siamak Nazami, 51, and Emad Sharqi, 59, along with environmentalist Morad Tahbaz, 67, are amongst some of the freed Americans– the other two choosing not to be publicly named. 

The exchange dissipates a small portion of the extensive tense relations between the U.S. and Iran. Although this major humanitarian issue has been resolved between the two countries, it is uncertain whether or not they will work on other issues they have– such as Iran’s nuclear program– or if tensions between them have even deescalated despite President Biden’s efforts. Although there is still much contention between the countries, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi believes the prisoner swap “...can certainly be a step based upon which in the future other humanitarian actions can be taken." Although it is a mere point of friction that has been resolved, it poses a possibility of cooperation between Iran and the U.S. in renewing their relations. 

On the contrary, many Republicans believe that this swap has further polarized relations between the countries as it may prompt Iran to hold more Americans hostage in anticipation of some monetary reward. Biden aides, however, express that the $6 billion in oil revenue belongs to Iran and is not some extraneous form of payment. The money was wired to restricted bank accounts in Qatar for the purpose of surveilling the money– laden with financial sanctions– to ensure it is spent on humanitarian goods. Both parties acknowledge, however, that the deal may allow Iran to spend the money they were previously allocating towards humanitarian goods for other purposes. There have been concerns not only about the issue of releasing extensive funds to Iran but the issue of American safety. Republican Senator Tom Cotton, of Arkansas, declared on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter, that “Joe Biden’s embarrassing appeasement not only makes Iran stronger, it makes America less safe.” There is concern that the money they once dedicated towards humanitarian goods are now freed to be used as funding for their nuclear program, which is another strained conflict between Iran and the U.S. 

Before freeing the prisoners, there were talks between the U.S. and Iran to convene on a broader conflict– Iran’s nuclear program. The countries strived to reestablish the Obama nuclear deal, which limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but Iran continued making insistences on its nuclear program that was not sustainable for the U.S. Along the way, talks of a redefined nuclear deal had become intertwined with the release of the American prisoners. To the negotiators acting on behalf of each country, it was eminent that the U.S. would not continue with an expensive prisoner swap when a nuclear deal was not settled. Suddenly, the release of the prisoners was contingent upon a solidified nuclear deal, which showed potential for a breakthrough in a cooperative relationship between the countries in easing tensions. However, it has also illuminated the growing concern for America’s safety in regards to Iran’s nuclear program. 

Despite this, much time elapsed and no deal was confirmed. Many individuals, including the families and lawyers of the prisoners, urged President Biden to overlook politics and bring their loved ones back home. Iran had come to the conclusion that, if they could not obtain a nuclear deal with the U.S., they first had to settle smaller matters– the prisoner swap– to begin to minimize tensions with the U.S. in order to eventually settle larger matters such as achieving sanctions relief and a nuclear deal breakthrough. Within a few weeks, a written agreement was  produced and the American prisoners were finally free. However, there was yet another delay. The fifth prisoner, a California woman, was recently arrested while doing aid work in Afghanistan. The release was delayed for another several weeks as they had to rearrange the agreement to encapsulate her release as well. Finally, the American prisoners were released– some from the Evin Prison (a detention center in Iran notorious for torture) and returned home. 

The success of bringing the prisoners back home sparked hope for Biden’s vow to continue to work for the release of more U.S. citizens imprisoned internationally. The Democratic party, in particular, views this as a stepping stone in working together with Iran to solve its humanitarian issues along with other broad affairs between the countries. However, there is widespread concern from the Republican party on this exchange and what it implies for the future. Many believe it is far too costly of a deal and there is no insurance of whether or not Iran will spend the billions in funds on humanitarian purposes. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken asserts that the deal did not give Iran access to U.S. funds but their own money. He also claimed Washington will ensure that the $6 billion oil revenue only goes toward humanitarian purposes. But how will this be ensured? On September 12th, just days before the prisoners’ release, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi proclaimed in an interview with NBC News that Iran will spend the $6 billion “wherever” it wants. This assertion goes directly against the convictions of government officials assuring Iran will spend the money on humanitarian needs leaving much uncertainty around the deal. 

There is certainly heightened polarization between the parties regarding the prisoner swap. With the multitude of views on the issue, it is difficult to discern what it implies for the future of Iran-U.S. relations. Most Democrats believe that the deal has opened up a forum for the countries to work together in resolving more of their conflicts. Most Republicans believe that this return of immense funds will only propel Iran to capture more Americans. They also believe it has generated a state of precariousness as we wait to see what Iran does with the funds. Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn condemned the swap on X writing, “On the anniversary of 9/11, Joe Biden handed over $6 billion to Iran. Under this administration, our enemies are getting stronger.” However, Iran was not a part of the 2001 terrorist attack. This post undeniably contributes to the already prevalent racial and cultural polarization between the U.S. and Iran by associating a Muslim country– Iran– with the 9/11 attack. This narrative along with the uncertainty surrounding the use of the funds may add to an already tense, polarized relationship between the U.S. and Iran. 

It is not yet clear whether the swap bolsters polarization between Iran and the U.S. In a way, they have worked together on an agreement that solved a common conflict; however, there are still many more central issues between them to be resolved along with the apprehension of what is to arise from Iran’s choice of spending on the funds. Although the return of American prisoners has restored hope in the United States’ future dealings with Iran, the premises on how the deal was arranged may prove to further sever the countries relations with one another.     

Unveiling Gender Inequality: The Balkan Sworn Virgin and the Ongoing Struggle for Equality in Albania

bulgarianphotographynow.com

Introduction

Enshrouded in swathes of clouds and adorning the landscape with lush forests and jagged cliffs, the formidable Accursed Mountains envelop the traditional, patriarchal societies of Northern Albania. Ancient traditions linked to rural mountain life linger here, such as that of the Balkan Sworn Virgin. Abiding by the duty to maintain family honor, a woman— perhaps even a child— relinquishes her femininity, abandoning her gendered clothing. Adopting her new role, the woman will abdicate total compliance to men purely on the basis of sex and will now serve as the guardian of family honor, upholding a tradition rooted in both misogyny and the strict respect for honor in Albanian culture. The woman converts her gender from female to male. This is an illustration of the Balkan Sworn Virgin, a phenomenon native to the Balkans, originating from at least the fifteenth century under Ottoman rule (Brujic 114).

Typically, a woman becomes a Balkan Sworn Virgin in order to preserve household honor. Other reasons include avoiding an arranged marriage, proceeding with an otherwise “dishonorable” or illegitimate divorce to continue the male family members’ manual labor duties in the event of a blood feud, in which male presence beyond the household is forbidden, or at the very least, unwise (Brujic 117).

Once a woman became a Balkan Sworn Virgin, she took an oath (besa) of celibacy and could no longer marry (Young 42). Many of these women donned clothing typical of men, associated with men, disdained the company of women, adopted male names and male pronouns, took on male social obligations, such as participating in the blood feud, and enjoyed the privileges of men, such as being able to smoke, drink, and enter spaces reserved purely for men (Brujic 115). Some entered the world as newborns already having been dictated as a Balkan Sworn Virgin by their father, while others either had the choice made for them during childhood or opted themselves to take the besa (Brujic 117). 

Nevertheless, the tradition, which has been vanishing since the decline of Ottoman rule and the beginnings of communism, remains a significant relic of patriarchal tribal society in the Balkans for its portrayal of a deep ridge between men and women. Gender equality has been on the rise today in the region, but this cultural practice, despite its perishing, reveals the violently patriarchal conditions responsible for sustaining it (Brujic 114). Few ethnographic studies have been conducted, although most existing documentation focuses on the practice in Albania rather than in the rest of the Balkan nations. Therefore, this article will concentrate on the practice conducted in Albania and how notions of honor uphold the endurance of patriarchal standards today.

Historical Context: The Kanun, Honor, and the Bloodfeud Among Gheg Albanians

Historically, Albania had been a feudal society dominated by tribes and ruled by the Ottoman Empire in name only, for the Accursed Mountains proved too difficult to trek (Young 2 and Brujic 125). Despite acknowledging Turkish suzerainty and the technical supremacy of sheriat (Ottoman Sharia Law), Albanians were, and still are, heavily guided by the Kanun, a set of twelve books of oral tradition regulating “all aspects of mountain life,” codified not until the nineteenth century but in existence long before Ottoman domination (Young 41, 51, and 132). Several versions of the Kanun exist, all named after a patriarchal figure, but the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini reigns supreme in Northern Albania. Book Eight of this version outlines the crucial need for preserving honor, stipulating that if honor is offended, only a pardon or the “spilling of blood” (a blood feud) can redeem the transgressor (Young 41). A blood feud is a form of honor killing in which the men of one family are tasked with murdering a male relative of the offender’s family. Since Ottoman authority lacked the capacity to regulate Albanian society, the blood feud emerged as a disincentive for offensive violence (Brujic 125).  

Here, a paradox emerges, for the Kanun’s authority couldn’t counter the extreme sensitivity of “honor” in Albanian society. Not much violence had been prevented: Until the 1920s, up to 30% of Albanian men died from blood feuds, leaving a severe shortage of men (Young 2). In one instance, eighteen men were noted to have died in a disagreement over a dog, while Albanologist Edith Durham records a dispute that killed seventeen and maimed eleven over which star was actually the biggest in the night sky (Shryock 114). 

It is precisely this sensitivity of honor which drives the Balkan Sworn Virgin custom. A family deprived of an honorable male heir, meaning one who exudes respectability and embodies Albanian customs, would turn to a daughter to attain this role to further the prestige of the family. Furthermore, refusing to enter an arranged marriage with the intent of marriage to someone else would certainly insult the proposed fiance’s family, leaving women who wanted to break off a marriage little choice but to become a Balkan Sworn Virgin. Many divorcees and widows also took this role instead of remarrying. In addition, women would also have to fulfill both household duties and the additional tasks of men outside the home during a blood feud, for their status as women made them immune to death or injury from the rivaling group (Brujic 117-120).

Historical Gender Inequality in Albania

The Kanun and Domestic Violence

While honor initiates the custom, when combined with a strictly patriarchal culture, the Balkan Sworn Virgin illuminates the stark reality of gender inequality in Albania. Men can only preserve the family’s honor; otherwise, no gender conversion would be necessary, and neither would be an oath to virginity, a relic of purity culture which only serves to sustain esteemed morality (Brujic 127). Anthropologist Berit Backer notes that Albanian tribal culture is considered “one of the most patriarchal in the world” (Young 14). The Kanun’s dictates on familial life underscore this claim: Article XX of the Kanun of Lekё Dukagjini “considers a woman as a superfluity in [her parents’] household,” and elsewhere within the Kanun are provisions providing for domestic violence when “appropriate” (Gjeçov 28 and Young 22). Unfortunately, even today, little record of domestic violence exists in Albania and the other Balkan states; harsh societal stigma dissuades most women from reporting it, and among those who do present their case to court, many receive an adverse response from male lawyers and judges. Up until the late 1990s, the Albanian government recorded no statistics on domestic abuse and no shelters existed for battered women (Young 148). 

Marriage and Family Life

In the heyday of tradition, girls in Albania were expected to remain in the house to perform household duties, leaving little opportunity to socialize. Meanwhile, their male counterparts were permitted to come and go as they please, with no requirement or expectation to engage in household chores (Young 22). Even in the modern era, some girls face restrictions to their education on account of household duties as well as  preservation of family honor (Young 22 and 25). The maintenance of a girl’s reputation and her family honor is integral to the marriage custom of rural Albania: the value of the bride-to-be depends on the girl’s “purity and her willingness and ability to work hard” as well as the status of the girl’s entire family (Young 24). Simply attending school and being away from the family compound can jeopardize a girl’s, and by extension her family’s, reputation, for she might be raped or fall in love with someone outside the arrangement (Young 26). Traditionally, betrothals are arranged before birth or during childhood, and the bride or groom may not meet beforehand (Young 22). Following the wedding ceremony, the bride will relocate to her husband’s house, where she must “take a humble place in the corner, standing,” for three days and three nights, as well as going six months without speaking unless spoken to by the elder men (Young 28). Albanian women interviewed by ethnographic researcher Susan Pritchett Post in the late 1990s describe the “dictatorship of [the] husband,” claiming divorce is not socially accepted, domestic violence is permitted and enforced, and women are not allowed to make decisions nor can they even speak to men or enter their spaces (Young 23 and 28-29). Albanian women are also expected to birth children, although only sons are considered respectable. To have a daughter is a tragedy (Young 30). One woman comments that she only became a Balkan Sworn Virgin to prevent her family the shame of birthing five daughters and no sons (Young 57). Today, these attitudes and the custom of arranged marriages have largely died out in Northern Albania, although the UN has assessed the custom is still practiced in some isolated rural communities.

Contrasting Behavior and Attitudes Ascribed to Respective Sexes

In some cases, men are free to express themselves, while women are not. This division begins as early as childhood, as one researcher observing a Kosovar refugee camp in Macedonia notes that only boys were permitted to swim and play as children do (Young 32). Muslim women of the south were expected to renounce their religion to marry the Catholics populating the north, even though the opposite trend would have been considered apostasy and an affront to family honor (Whitaker 148). Deep in the foothills of the Accursed Mountains, male homosexuality was permitted when no women were around. In fact, homesexual relations were viewed as “expected” among younger men, arousing no sense of shame. Women, on the other hand, could not pursue such relationships, for deriving pleasure from sex was not the woman’s prerogative; only procreation was (Whitaker 149). The rich heritage of Albanian epic songs features many lyrical interpretations relating to male sexual gratification, juxtaposing this idea with the woman’s duty to maintain her sexual morality and family honor by remaining chaste until marriage (Whitaker 149). 

Historically, attitudes toward women were quite demeaning, viewing their existence and role in the social order as a cause of the blood feud and as an obstacle to maintaining family honor (Shryock 115). The utilization of women as points of arbitration among feuding families denied their humanity, for they would be stripped of any remaining scrap of autonomy and sold to a rival family in marriage as a form of remediation. (Shryock 115). Durham, who visited Albania and is responsible for most information recorded on the Balkan Sworn Virgin, writes that her position as a “writing woman,” was viewed negatively by some Albanian men, who claimed such a woman would not perform household duties (Durham 36). The Balkan Sworn Virgin, by preserving her family’s honor, escaped bearing the burden of this patriarchal system, though continued to reinforce it through adopting a form of misogyny of their own, having nothing but scorn for the company of women (Brujic 115).

Additionally, a woman, by account of her gender, did not have the capacity to possess honor of her own accord; it came through the decisions her male relatives made for her. A woman could simply remain “pure,” execute a diligent work ethic within the household, and birth sons to further her family’s dignity, though she had no stake in the blood feud and no say in the decisions of the tribe. Women were not considered individuals of their own right.

The Balkan Sworn Virgin and Gender Inequality in Modern Albania 

Before analyzing the status of the Balkan Sworn Virgin and of women in Albania today, it is important not to misconstrue Albanian society as “savage” or one that needs “saving” based on this account of the misogyny deeply embedded in its society. It’s long been a tendency for academics and other professionals to castigate the alleged violence of unusual depravity in the Balkans, despite Durham aptly pointing out that Western critics, too, engage in the blood feud and call it “war” (Durham 25). The verb “to balkanize,” meaning the fragmentation of a state into smaller states, typically as a result of war, presents a derogatory usage, deriving from the “lawlessness” and “chaos” of the Balkans (Young 131). Although a woman had to surrender her female identity and assume a male role in order to enjoy the privileges a man receives on the mere status of his gender, Albanian society is not primitive and has come a long way in achieving gender equality today since the era of the Balkan Sworn Virgin.

Balkan Sworn Virgins as a practice have largely died out as the state emerged as a legitimate political force with subjugation over the population. State authority means the law is no longer up to the people to enforce; thus, the grip the blood feud once had on the population is not as strong as it traditionally was, although it is still practiced in the northern region. With an ample supply of men, women no longer had to convert their gender in this circumstance. Modernization has also reduced the impact of rural isolation and improved women’s status through a greater exposure to external influences in the region (Brujic 127). Therefore, the extent to which women are subjugated by patriarchal ordinance isn’t as tremendous as it had been. Women are free to divorce and no longer need to adopt a male status to preserve the honor of a household in the event no suitable man exists (Molla 122).

Gender Inequality Under Communism

Women achieved much of their gains in post-socialist Albania, although subtle progress began under the communist era. In 1941, Enver Hoxha began his reign as the country’s first communist leader, enforcing a strict interpretation of Stalinism. Between 1945 and 1991, Albanians were not permitted to leave the country or freely practice religion (Young 3). Despite significant isolation and harsh authoritarianism, communism still presented an external force that granted women some freedoms, such as opening up participation in government, improving access to education, and furthering the state of adequate women’s healthcare. However, Hoxha’s reign did little to improve women’s status within the domestic sphere. This resulted in a double workload for women as they worked outside the home and continued to perform household duties. Furthermore, even though healthcare had been improved, birth control and abortion were still illegal in order to conform to the societal expectation to bear a large family (Young 147-148). Despite a handful of gains for women under communism, it’s rumored several women in northern Albania became Balkan Sworn Virgins in the 1950s as a form of protest against Hoxha’s communist regime, implying the persistence of structural misogyny (Young 149-150).

Gender Inequality After Communism

In 1992, Sali Berisha and the Democratic Party took over the government (Young 4). Abortion had been legalized a year prior in 1991, and by 1996, up to fifty five groups advocating for equality for women had been established (Young 150). Despite feminism soaring in popularity, violent manifestations of misogyny still plague Albanian society today. According to the UN, 60% of Albanian women aged fifteen to forty-five report having been victims of domestic violence. In addition to domestic violence, prostitution and sex trafficking persist. After the fall of communism, the opening of borders and the country’s prime location along the Ionian and Adriatic Seas made it a “haven” for sex trafficking of women into Western Europe (Tabaku 99). Organized crime thrived during the transition from communism to democracy and was further strengthened by the Kanun’s emphasis on honor and loyalty as criminals swore their allegiance (Tabaku 100). Furthermore, studies have found that notions of male honor exacerbate male violence, which has already been reflected in the blood feud and domestic violence of Albania’s history (Maguire 64). Trafficking of women and girls from Albania to Western Europe reached its peak between 1997 and 2001 and is now on the decline, but enough Albanian women and children are still lured into trafficking rings with false promises of marriage or work for the U.S. Department of State, as of 2022, to classify the country as “Tier 2” out of three tiers along the Trafficking in Persons Report guideline (Tabuku 99).

In the 2020s, Albanian feminists demand justice for rape and domestic violence victims, taking to the streets in Tirana in support of 28-year-old Irvana Hyka, who was murdered by her husband in 2021. When interviewed, these feminists claimed domestic violence is a “normalized social routine within a patriarchal suppressive system.” Unfortunately, improvements in gender equality have not been able to counter the violent misogyny that persists in Albania, even if women no longer have to become men to be treated like human beings. Albanian feminists of today condemn the insidious Balkan Sworn Virgin practice for being “anti-feminist” and “horrible” as they combat widespread societal acceptance of domestic violence and prostitution.

Conclusion

Although the Balkan Sworn Virgin custom has died out, it presents a drastic contrast between the status of men and women which, unlike the phenomenon, still hasn’t died out today. Albanian women continue to face challenges in securing their equality with men, facing domestic violence and exploitation through prostitution at alarming rates. Multiple avenues for future research present themselves through this exploration on the history of Balkan Sworn Virgins, which may also be illuminated by the phenomenon.

References

Brujic, Marija and Vladimir Krstic. “Sworn Virgins of the Balkan Highlands.” Traditiones, vol. 51, no. 3, 2022, pp. 113-130.

Durham, Edith. High Albania. London: Centre for Albanian Studies, 2015.

Gjeçov, Shtjefën. The Code of Lekë Dukagjinit. Translated by Leonard Fox, Gjonklekaj Publishing Co, 1989.

Maguire, Sarah. “Researching ‘A Family Affair’: Domestic Violence in Former Yugoslavia and Albania.” Gender and Development 6, no. 3, 1998, pp. 60-68.

Molla, Alketa. “Divorce in Albania and the Problems that it Carries.” European Scientific Journal 11, no. 26, 2015, pp. 122-129.

Shryock, Andrew J. “Autonomy, Entanglement, and the Feud: Prestige Structures and Gender Values in Highland Albania.” Anthropological Quarterly 61, no. 3, 1988, pp. 113-118.

Tabaku, Arben. “Ethnic Albanian Rings of Organized Criminals and the Trafficking and Smuggling of Human Beings: An International, Regional and Local Perspective.” SEER: Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, 11, no. 1 2008, pp. 99-109.

Whitaker, Ian. “A Sack for Carrying Things: The Traditional Role of Women in Northern Albanian Society.” Anthropological Quarterly 54, no. 3, 1981, pp. 146-156.

Young, Antonia. Women Who Become Men: Albanian Sworn Virgins. Oxford: Berg, 2000.

The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in the Global Economy

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has already begun to influence labor markets around the world, and its impact is set to continue evolving in a variety of ways. The advent of artificial intelligence has opened up an era of transformation for labor markets worldwide. As AI technologies continue to advance at an unprecedented scale, their impact on the world of labor is indisputable. AI has the potential to re-shape our approach to employment, skills development and economic growth. Against this backdrop, it's essential to study not only how AI is influencing labor markets, but also focus on how governments are beginning to feel the rise of AI in their own economies, forcing them to develop policies to ensure that AI is used for the benefit of individuals, rather than harming the global economy, potentially impacting trade, nation-state relations and society.

Over the last decades, the rise of emerging markets has led to various companies outsourcing their manufacturing activities in countries where the cost of labor is relatively cheaper. While doing so benefited companies who enjoyed cheaper labor costs, it presented a threat to domestic companies as jobs once performed by domestic workers were outsourced abroad, leading to a rise in unemployment, especially in the manufacturing sector. This tendency to outsource manufacturing and low-skilled activities abroad was a first important shift in the labor market of many countries, creating new opportunities in emerging economies. Now, a new threat has arisen in the labor market, not only in the United States, but throughout the world, which could further impact the global economic landscape. Indeed, the technological advances and the rise of artificial intelligence more particularly are increasingly being integrated into professional workflows and business applications. This integration could further impact the stability of the labor market worldwide, causing a shift in productivity and efficiency due to a potential disruption of labor markets. 

The Brookings Institution, a prominent research organization, is delving into the future impact of advanced AI tools on worker productivity and labor demand. It's crucial to distinguish between earlier AI technologies and the emerging generative AI tools. Historically, AI and automation have mainly affected jobs with routine tasks, jobs that tend to be low-skilled such as manufacturing occupations whose tasks could be replicated more efficiently and at a lower-cost by machine automation. However, generative AI tools are poised to influence a broader range of professions involving non-routine tasks. In today’s world, the heavy focus on innovation and technological advances – mainly from emerging markets who attempt to increase their role in an increasingly competitive landscape –have led to the development of technologies in various sectors of the economy, such as banking, teaching, or biotechnology. This shift marks a significant change in the labor market dynamics, as it encompasses roles previously thought to be safe from automation. This growth in the influence of AI in non-routine tasks highlights the need for proactive and policy-driven adaptation to ensure the successful and sustainable integration of AI tools. Brookings Institution research provides valuable insights for navigating this changing technological landscape.

The rise of the automation of routine tasks, which has been an increasing threat for the workforce, as individuals have witnessed the growing role of AI and robotic process automation, with many seeing their jobs disappear to this new advanced technology. Automation and AI represent transformative forces reshaping the business landscape, promising not only increased efficiency but also substantial contributions to economic growth through heightened  productivity. However, they also pose a threat to individuals who work in manufacturing or service jobs. As these technologies further grow and develop, they are able to perform tasks that even humans cannot yet accomplish. This trend, if it continues, could lead to a decline in demand for manual labor in certain segments of the economy. Society will have to cope with major workforce transitions and upheavals. Workers in different sectors of the economy will have to acquire new skills and adapt to the increasingly powerful machines to maintain their important position in the labor market and compete against technologies that appear to get better and smarter everyday. In some cases, the rise of AI and automation may lead workers to rethink their career path and pursue a path that aligns with the new reality of the labor market, one in which technology is deeply integrated. Although the rise of these technologies have benefits in terms of added efficiency and productivity, it will require workers, and businesses to reinvent their way of working to mitigate job loss and displacement. It is important that we highlight the importance of working with technology, and not against it, especially when countries develop different technologies and competition rises. Threats become more evident with rising competition and geo-political tensions.

The rise of automation looks very different in developed and less developed countries where the labor market is significantly different. In the United States, automation and other forces will continue to reshape the labor market. According to a McKinsey report, the integration of generative artificial intelligence is expected to cause 30% of hours worked today to be automated by 2030. Research has also demonstrated that automation and AI will boost productivity, showing that generative AI has the potential to increase U.S. labor productivity by 0.5 to 0.9 percentage points per year through 2030 in a medium adoption scenario. It is important to remember that the United States is a developed and highly skilled country, other forces are also expected to reshape the workforce in the country, including but not limited to federal investments with recent federal legislation stimulating momentum and investment in other areas that will have an impact on employment. As the country goes through this period of technological transformation, it needs to consider not only the potential of automation to improve productivity, but also the wider implications of these changes on employment, workforce development and the overall economic landscape.

In emerging markets, often referred to as developing economies, the rise of artificial intelligence could accelerate the de-globalization process, making it easier to bring production back onshore without incurring significantly higher costs, as mentioned by Standard Chartered’s Madhur Jha and Christopher Graham in a Bloomberg article. Due to the rise of technological advances, emerging countries have been able to increase their role in the global economic landscape, adapting in an ever-changing world, even catching up to developed markets. Emerging markets can greatly benefit from AI: its applications offer new ways of bridging infrastructure gaps and solving pressing development issues in key sectors. In terms of labor market, the rise of these generative technology will potential lead to job displacement, but also will cause a shift in skills demand, because emerging markets are increasingly demanding a workforce with skills in AI, data science and other related fields; as AI becomes more widespread, there is a growing need for people who can develop, maintain and operate AI systems. Lasly, emerging markets will greatly benefit from artificial intelligence that is expected to increase productivity and efficiency, which will in turn result in the creation of new jobs in industries related to the development and maintenance of AI technology. 

However, the rise of AI technology in the global economy is not without its challenges. Leading economists, known for their expertise in this field, have issued a message of caution regarding the potential repercussions of artificial intelligence on the middle class. They fear that the integration of AI and automation into the workforce could further worsen the current decline of the middle class. This imminent threat, they argue, is anchored in a dual mechanism: firstly, the progressive undermining of traditional, stable and well-paid job opportunities that don't require advanced educational qualifications, and secondly, the rapid pace of automation, which could overtake the simultaneous creation of new roles for human workers. This confluence of factors poses a challenge to middle-class stability and prosperity, and justifies a closer look at the potential economic and societal transformations associated with AI advances. Questions have risen concerning the ethicality of these technologies in terms of privacy, prejudice and job displacement. Governments in developed and emerging markets are faced with the need to establish regulatory frameworks to address these issues. 

In response to the current challenges posed by AI and the need to mitigate the potential risks associated with these transformative technologies, the Brookings Institution highlights the need to develop sophisticated tools and strategies to manage AI's influence on the labor market. As we saw earlier, AI introduces a significant measure of uncertainty into the world of employment, particularly with regard to its implications for middle-class stability. However, it is essential to recognize that assessing the deep and multifaceted effects of AI on labor demand is a complex undertaking, characterized by nuanced intricacies that require careful consideration. Governments around the world are working hard to develop and implement policies to regulate the use of AI, with an emphasis on protecting data privacy and strengthening security measures. These regulatory efforts represent an important step towards responsibly harnessing the capabilities of AI while minimizing potential risks to individuals and society as a whole. In the ever-changing landscape of advanced technologies, it must be acknowledged that the future remains somewhat of a mystery, and that it is difficult to predict the exact impact of AI on the labor market.

However, it is essential to underline that AI, despite its remarkable capabilities, lacks certain essential human attributes. Elements such as creativity, emotional intelligence, ethical and moral reasoning, and the profound ability to understand and navigate complex social and cultural contexts remain exclusively in the human domain. While the role of AI continues to expand, and there is potential for the displacement of certain jobs, it is essential to recognize that the global labor market is a dynamic ecosystem that is constantly adapting to the changing landscape. In this landscape, those who manage to adapt, upskill and embrace the opportunities offered by AI will be the most successful. AI-driven transformation is a call to reimagine our roles, cultivate unique human qualities and harness AI as a supplementary resource in the drive for shared prosperity.

As emerging markets have demonstrated their resilience and adaptability as they recovered from the pandemic, it is important to note their heavy focus on the research and development of new technology, competing with developed markets to gain a competitive advantage and boost productivity. It will be interesting to see how trade organizations will be reacting to the growing impact of AI technologies on international trade, and more specifically on job displacement throughout the world. Indeed, as emerging markets are further developing, they are shifting away from low-skilled labor, giving opportunities for less developed countries such as Vietnam, to develop their manufacturing sector. As previously mentioned, governments and trade organizations will have to focus their policies and regulations on job protections, to ensure that countries do not negatively suffer from these innovative technologies, but that they are rather used as a supplementary tool for success.

Climate Refugees: Their Phantom Protections

insideclimatenews.org

In 2020, unprecedented flooding in rural areas of Afghanistan displaced thousands of Afghans. This resulted not only from more extreme storms, but also from the destruction of trees that protected and aggregated the soil. Farmers were forced to move to higher ground, local cities, and to Iran as their homes, crops, and livestock washed away. Since then, flooding has continued to increase year to year during the wet season, making the region inhabitable and contributing to global climate migration. 

Climate change poses a major threat to nations around the world. In the coming decades, millions of people will be displaced as a result of natural disasters, coastline erosion, and lack of resources. As of 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees released data saying that the rate of climate related migrants has risen 21.5 million since 2010, and the Institute for Economics and Peace estimates that at least 1.2 billion people will be displaced as a result of these disasters by 2050. The facts are clear: climate migration will become a major policy issue as an eighth of the world’s population is expected to migrate in the next thirty years, so how are governments responding to the looming climate-caused refugee crisis? The answer: they are not. Current policies and standing meetings like the Paris Agreement (adopted in 2015), the annual Conference of Parties (COP), and the Loss and Damage Finance Facility (LDFF) set standards for net zero emissions and began reparations work that hold major emitter, industrialized countries accountable for climate change. But these do not establish individual protections for climate migrants who are the face of climate adaptation and the bearers of environmental injustice. 

Climate migrants fall into three categories: refugees, internally displaced peoples (IDPs), and stateless peoples. Yet they cannot be defined by their relation to the climate alone as they often live in the cross hairs of conflict, making them even more vulnerable. Climate hotspots are areas more susceptible to the effects of climate change, leaving the people within them particularly vulnerable. They contribute to the lack of the necessary resources needed to adapt to climate change in their regions, forcing communities to move once again. Environmental damages are even being used against minority groups in existing national conflicts, as seen in the Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict. For the past three decades, Azerbaijan has demolished the biodiversity in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the disputed territory of the Armenian minority population, to make them more vulnerable during their attacks. This is just one example of how the environment is weaponized by states to debilitate populations already in crisis. 

While the UN General Assembly acknowledged in 2018 that climate change is a major contributor to migration, “climate refugee” is still not an official status. Without refugee status, individuals cannot seek asylum abroad, are waitlisted for medical care and social services, and are not protected as stateless people by their receiving countries. Additionally, the acknowledgement of climate refugees would signal that “wealthier countries, which are most responsible for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, [have a] global responsibility to help those harmed by climate change,” according Mia Prange of CFR. With the rates of climate migration growing, the international community is currently unprepared for the rise in refugees they will have to take in and will likely need more lenient refugee policies that encompass victims of climate change to support them.

In 1950, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) was organized, and in 1951, the Refugee Convention defined a refugee as, “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” This definition is still the framework for defining refugees today, and while its broad outlook on refugees makes it adaptable to many different conflicts and circumstances, its stagnant definition has prevented it from adapting to modern issues like climate change. Since migrants moving as a result of natural disasters and climate change are not facing direct persecution by another group of people, they are not covered in all cases in the way that they would be if they were their own designated group. 

In 2008, the Brookings Institution identified five categories of migrants who have to move for climate and natural disasters: hydro-meteorological disasters, situations of environmental degradation, sinking of small island states, zones too dangerous for human habitation, and climate change induced. In many instances, the initial reason for migration is to look for economic advantages abroad, but when things get drastic and a sudden hurricane or fire wipes out a region destroying homes and livelihoods, the move is more urgent. While economic migrants have protection, climate refugees do not have the designations protecting them when disaster strikes. 

Without climate refugees being a defined status, individuals do not get the protections that legal refugees do. These can range from resettlement documentation and health care to case work and recreational activities. The most significant of these protections is non-refoulement in Article 33 of Refugee Convention, which gives everyone the right to seek asylum and protects asylum seekers from being turned away or sent back to their country of origin at international borders. This is important because, even before a person receives their official refugee status and the process of resettlement, they are protected by international governments and supported in their journey to liberty. Therefore, the concern advocates of climate refugees have is that, without protection and a legal category by the international community, climate migrants will be deported back to their homes of origin, which may be demolished, in famine or drought, and uninhabitable, as in the case of Ioane Teitiota. He is a citizen and resident of Kiribati, a small island nation in the Pacific threatened to “sink” as result of rising tides. In 2015, he sought asylum in New Zealand but was denied because there was no imminent threat to his life, as scientists still predict a few decades before sea levels rise to the point of island consumption. This resulted in him being sent back to Kiribati where he appealed to the UN Covenant on Civil Liberties. 

So what’s stopping the international community from stepping up and protecting climate refugees? One argument is that expected migration as a result of land loss and degradation is not severe enough for it to pose a threat to life or well-being, as was the conclusion of the court in Teitota’s appeal. Yet, even though they upheld the New Zealand decision, the UN ruling was critical for how climate refugee status is discussed. They acknowledge that in countries like Kiribati, life threatening effects of climate change are likely and that climate refugee status must be determined on a case by case basis. They also affirmed that slow on-set effects, like sea level rise and long term drought, can be just as deadly as quick on-set effects, like wildfire and cyclone decimation. 

In this case, the UN court used judicial activism to push the international community towards official climate refugee status but failed once again to legalize it. The true reason for the polarization of this debate is the responsibility of colonization that would fall on Western countries, and the economic burden they would have to bear. Research from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research shows the countries that will be hit hardest by temperature increases are those nearer the equator. The propensity for drought, soil degradation, monsoon level storms, heat waves, and wildfires are all projected to “reach 560 a year – or 1.5 each day, statistically speaking – by 2030,” according to the UN in 2022. And the states carrying the brunt of this burden are those in the global south, where these events occur more frequently. Additionally, equatorial developing countries are substantially more vulnerable, which leads to “long-term economic disadvantages,” whereas developed countries closer to the poles “tend to show no significant vulnerability.” When rich, colonizer nations block climate refugee status and modern migrant protections from passing on the global level, they are protecting themselves from the backlash of the inequalities they created, and they will not atone for their errors until it is too late. 

One cannot discuss the global response to climate change without talking about reparations, and this would be just one way that wealthy countries can make amends. At COP28 in Dubai last year, two dozen countries committed to a “loss and damages” fund that would distribute wealth from countries responsible for the creation of global warming, to countries suffering the impacts. While this is a monumental step towards adapting to climate change on a state by state basis, COP and the UN still need to support individuals on the frontlines of natural disasters. Adaptation can only take the world so far when major action to stimmy the burning of fossil fuels has failed time and again. Eventually, people, often the economically disadvantaged from underdeveloped countries, will be forced to move, and when they do, states have to be ready to take them. Waiting for the day when a flood of people land on a country’s doorstep looking for aid to make a decision, is neither constructive nor sustainable.

And the day has already come. In March, Cyclone Freddy hit southern Africa, killing more than five hundred people and displacing hundreds of thousands of people across Malawi, Madagascar, and Mozambique, leading to record breaking internal and external migration. Migration as a result of climate change is not just the future, but the present, and until governments put aside their prides and end the debate on refugee status, people will not be safe to move where they need to protect themselves and their families against the rising water levels, increased temperatures, and extreme weather. In decades to come, inaction during the case of climate refugee status is the same as inaction during a human rights crisis. Definitions in the law are important - they define who has rights and who doesn't, who is secure and who isn’t. This is just one definition that could make a world of good if the international community took up the mantle and protected migrants.

PARLACEN: The Rats Den

What is the PARLACEN?

The PARLACEN (Parlamento CentroAmericano) or CAP (Central American Parliament) is the parliamentary body of the political organization known as SICA (Central American Integration system) whose objectives is to help integrate and develop, peace, political freedom, development, and promote free trade among Central American Countries. However, it has recently been used  as a vessel for former Presidents, elected officials, businessmen, and even the families of these involved parties to escape crime in their home countries. 

The PARLACEN, being an international organization between states, grants diplomatic immunity to those who are members in Latin America, meaning that these politicians are immune for crimes in Central America. With the rare of exception of Honduras, who suspended their diplomatic immunity after Ex-President Porifio Lobo Sosa who at the time was the President of the Honduran National Congress suspended their diplomatic immunity. This is interesting because a few years after that decision, Lobo Sosa's wife, former First Lady Rosa Lobo, was indicted in Honduras for misuse of Public Funds. Lobo Sosa himself has been accused of many crimes and headlines as one of the most recent Central American politicians who has been blacklisted from the U.S. a big first in the country’s history. Lobo Sosa was indicted in the United States for charges of Drug Trafficking, Racketeering, Tax Evasion and more. Even without these protections, it is rare for a country like the United States to prosecute them while they’re international deputies regardless of whether there is clear evidence of a crime because of diplomatic red tape. Countries with charismatic leaders or whose parties control a majority of the government would most of the time not allow a fellow member of that party to be extradited and being a member of the PARLACEN would only make that harder.

What grants them immunity?

The rules of Parlacen are extremely ambiguous, essentially granting the countries the freedom to pursue their own agendas and rules. They base other countries' diplomatic powers on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. What does this mean? The internal rules of the Parlacen allow for the same immunity and protections stipulated in the Vienna Convention if the sending state (the country that sends the deputies) agrees to them. This rule in the Parlacen allows that any elected official (as long as they're permitted) is granted this immunity in Central America. There are exceptions to this, like a host country may ask the PARLACEN to lift or suspend a specific deputies privileges.

As of 2023, each country sends twenty officials, each with a deputy, to the Parlacen. The rules of the Parlacen also state that each elected official is elected the same way they would in their own country. For example, in Guatemala, there is a direct election, while in other countries, primaries are held or in some cases parties will appoint a specific person for the ticket. Furthermore, former heads of states (presidents) of a member country also qualify as members of parliament; however,  this grace period is dependent and given by each individual country. 

Electoral Courts

Most Latin American Countries have within their public administration an entity known as Electoral Courts, which are in charge of overseeing every election. Amongst their powers and responsibilities is this jurisdiction in which they can bend some rules during elections; even if unconstitutional. For example, there has been ruling by these courts to allow private citizens with legal trouble to run for office. This is known as a fuero, here on now referred to as special privileges These special privileges allow the courts to acknowledge this legal trouble, whether domestic or abroad, and still allow that candidate to run for office. Most recently, we see the Tribunal Electoral of Panama rule in favor of former President Ricardo Martinellli,who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison yet still allowed to run because his appeal negates the guilty conviction needed to bar him from the election. While some may be quick to point out how judges can be bought and that judicial accountability is a rare phenomenon in Latin America; I argue that these courts are the most overseen by justice department because, just as they have the right to give you special privileges as a politician or party leadership, they can take it away.

Unethical by purpose or design?

One country who is notorious for using the PARLACEN as a vessel for special privileges is Panama. In 2023, the sons of aforementioned former president of Panama Ricardo Martinelli, whose sons were involved in money laundering, bribery, and illicit enrichment charges in Panama and the United States were sworn in to the PARLACEN as alternate deputies. This means that they get the immunities granted to them by the Vienna Convention, essentially stalling out their sentence. Ironically enough, Ricardo Martinelli himself attempted to leave The Parlacen, at the time calling it “a den of thieves,” However, both international and Panamanian courts found the action rash and unconstitutional.

The Martinelli brothers are not the only Panamanian Politicians seeking this special benefit. Former President of Panama Juan Carlos Varela, who is blacklisted from the United States for alleged involvement in corruption, is also seeking a seat in the Parliament. Varela is facing serious charges of corruption and bribes. Ricardo Martinelli, whom Varela once served as Vice President under, is leading the polls in the upcoming presidential election in 2024 (even despite all of those corruption charges) which for Varela, who is considered a nemesis of Martinelli, means he’s in really hot water if elected. 

During many of these elections, it is often seen in a lot of campaign trails for these politicians, who later attempt to benefit from the special privileges, their disdain for the governmental entity. Martinelli tried to leave the PARLACEN, as did Varela,yet, they did not revoke their privileges as Honduras did. Honduran politicians agreed to leave ability for immunity off the table while Panama still kept theirs. This begs the question: did these politicians foreshadow their future intentions or do they really believe in these anti-corruption methods? Because if they truly believed in the PARLACEN being a den of thieves  and leaving did not work, why not revoke the immunity anyway to deter and avoid the loophole? They do this by mix of saying what they need to win a crowd, and planting the idea in their minds to diminish the shock when they run PARLACEN after leaving office. One of the reasons why they get away with it is a mentality of “nothing is going to change”. A lot of people refer to Martinelli’s Administration with the quote “Robó pero hizo” (Stole but did) referring to the Millions of dollars embezzled from projects and the subsequent bribes that brought his alleged crimes. Furthermore, in a lot of Latin American countries, voting is seen as important; most citizens see the Central American Parliament as a joke entity for thieves, and they don’t actively participate in these elections other than to support their favorite former politicians from the hands of “injustice.”

Panama, however, is not the only instance where we’ve seen this; they’re just the most recent. In 2003 Nicaragua’s former president, Arnoldo Aleman also sought refuge within the Parliament,which ended up stripping him from his immunities and allowed him to be charged in an effort to save its reputation; there are also instances of corruption from Members of Parliament. The former president of the Central American Parliament, Mario Facusee Nadal, was charged with illegally appropriating some properties that belonged to the state. He also once sought to repeal the immunity, with Panama as a co-sponsor.

Conclusion

A lot of politicians and political pundits do not really see the point in the PARLACEN. While its reputation precedes itself, the same people are seen to be claiming it is an institution in which accountability is not enforced. The mission of the PARLACEN is to foster economic and cultural alliance between central american countries. More than three decades later it is now just a question of, is it worth it? Consequently, I believe that there are several solutions that could fix this problem if all parties agree to it.  Firsty, amending the internal rules of the body itself, abolishing this diplomatic immunity, and special privileges that are given to these congresspeople. Likewise, they can also make membership more exclusive by adding a morality or similar  clause barring citizens who have open investigations against them or have been charged with a crime before. The last solution I propose is to abolish the organization. If concern for corruption is high, and there have been efforts to leave the PARLACEN, then I believe this is an option worth considering, while extreme it would make facing accountability in Central American countries easier.

Dignity: The Bridge Beyond the Global Communication Crisis: Part 1, A Historical Recharacterization

The world stands at a distinct crossroads. In the face of a global pandemic and subsequently fragile economy, looming environmental collapse, systemic identity-based division and political upheaval, we find ourselves rooted in patterns of aggression, overwhelmed by feelings of fear and isolation. Academics, policy makers and advocates across the globe have contentiously debated where we are to go from here. They see the planet on fire, the bloodshed, and the daily struggle of so many to survive brewing increasing resentment towards widening inequality and the institutions that create it. Some see how these feelings are exploited and exacerbated by the opportunistic power and profit seeking polarization industrial complex. With division so steeped, we fail to collaborate and implement sustainable solutions to these critical issues, and instead become apathetic, made to believe we have no power to overcome these barriers. Numerous theories have been developed to pinpoint the source of these deep divisions, but their intersectionality provides no clear path to healing beyond this continued quest for knowledge, hoping that at some point our self-consciousness will re-activate the apathetic abandonment of civic engagement, and inspire an equitable reform of our institutions.

The truth, however, is that these proliferating theories, communicated through language, fail to transcend the sociopolitical bubbles which create them, and thus, scale into collective action. They are often observational or descriptive of symptoms of our current state, glossing over all deeper psychological causality. They trace the histories of political parties and voting behavior, discuss the historical roots of poverty or the conflict between two religious sects. They sometimes consider what emotions are fostered by intersectional oppression, or are used to manipulate human behavior into engagement or disengagement in one’s community, radicalism, political violence, etc. Some even ask which emotions determine one’s partisan identity or cultural sorting into a more disciplined versus loose society. However, almost all social science research focuses on drawing causality between demography and survey answers or measurable behaviors, describing broader patterns from a distorted metric of the way things are right now. This moment, in that it is not the first existential global crisis, but the latest iteration faced by humanity, cannot be genuinely understood in a vacuum constructed by the influence of these contextual particulars. Rather, we need to zoom out, and reconsider the interaction of human nature with the wider historical narrative. We need to ask not where this particular division comes from, but what is psychologically necessary for shifting away from this human tendency. We need to critically think about what our better future looks like, reimagining our relationships from that lens, if we are ever to effectively strategize a path to getting there.

This series of articles will offer a reframing of the historical narrative and specifically the history of philosophy to illuminate not what is driving these particular divisions, but allows for the mentality of division, aggression, and fear more broadly. This recharacterization will also draw out a timeless path of human inquiry into our fundamental psychological needs for moving past these clearly unsustainable tendencies, the continuation of which can provide a critical standard for the reform of institutions and human relationships that will allow for more inclusive and vigorous civic engagement and human flourishing. This will ultimately take the form of an ontological discussion of human dignity, in relation to recognition, and the somatic reconnection of mind and body offered by spiritual practices of Eastern philosophy.

Historical Recharacterization

Previous historical recharacterizations which aim to unpack the catalyst behind the systemic exacerbation of human division have centered around conflict- especially caused by material and power-based inequity. Thucydides in his Archaeology, social contract theorists, Freud, Karl Marx, Fukuyama, etc. each derived a new framework contingent on material human existence being the force which determines human behavior and turns the wheel of history. Their realities suggest that if a certain equality of outcomes were made possible, there would be an end to conflict. Even if material consciousness is one of the prime factors behind human identity formation and therefore division, we cannot be certain, without a more serious inquiry into human nature, if the tendency for conflict transcends economic interdependence. Perhaps human relationships would exist without material dependence, and all of these conflicts are connected on a deeper level. Perhaps what moves the wheel of history along is something less tangible, and more innately emotional. If this is the case, the solution to our polarization crisis would require an entirely different institutional reformation.

What is clear is that all human relationships are fundamentally perceived through communication, whether it’s rhetorical, or occurs through physical or aesthetic signals, from body language to architecture, arts, or advertisements. Communication has evolved across history alongside technology, which often takes center-stage in conflict-based materialist historical narratives. The birth of language, tools, civilization, the arts, architecture, telephone radio, television, and now social media have changed not only how we communicate, but something about the psychology of our relationships. Debates have circled throughout historical narratives about where human life began, whether in a brutal state of nature and a struggle to survive or the immediate presence of connection drawn from maternal or paternal bonds, for example. However, what is consistent across historical narratives is that at some point, coalitions were built between individuals, creating a pivot from a life as individuals to relationships between people, culminating in the formation of tribes, or the first iteration of community. Eventually, these relationships got more complex with the Neolithic Revolution, and the rise of civilization to the point of polities, regimes, empires, and so on. It’s also widely acknowledged that the development of technology is largely what facilitated each of these stages.

Historical narratives centered around materialism as the root of conflict have demonstrated that technology certainly made an impact on human psychology in this sense, and to some degree talk about deep virtues or shifts in moral consciousness which are fostered by it. However, they focus far less on the metaphysical shift in human consciousness established by technology, which ultimately uncovers not just activated tendencies, but our full range of psychological capacity. If we continue to think about the shift in human relationships caused by technology through the lens of communication, we start to draw out this primordial image.

Think for a moment, about the interaction of two people communicating in simplest terms- the closest we can imagine to an origin of human psychology, prior to the development of artificially manufactured subconscious bias. These two people interact in a physical space where they can plainly see each other. This allows for the perception of a person’s emotional response to the other’s communication, and therefore, connects both actors directly to any ethical obligation which humans may inherently feel toward each other. The relationship exists entirely in the realm of particulars. They get to know each other more from physical actions and responses than through historically shaped assumptions about each other’s opinions. While scholars disagree over the presence of moral agency at this origin point, we can see the situation is open to, rather than destructive of the potential for empathy, for example. This could be complicated by innate judgements about characteristics such as physiology, which are often connected to the psychology of material conflict. However, even these judgements would be made relative to the person observed in the present. This does not substantiate a claim that the development of a divisive material order is inevitable, nor irreversible. Both are communicating from emotions, even if those emotions include fear, which may create a persuasive or intimidating dialogue, but a dialogue directed at this contingent being, nonetheless, rather than at a wider group through the objectification of that being and the associations being made with it.  

The evolution of technology, as we know, distorts this model of communication by allowing the formation of human relationships across larger geographic distances and levels of specialization. An ever-increasing proportion of our connections to other people are with those we do not regularly interact with face to face. In fact, across history, relationships have evolved to where most of the people we are connected to we never meet in real life. As such, identity becomes defined increasingly by abstractions, or communities which are not physically interpersonal, but are defined by other joint characteristics or needs, which we can understand conceptually. Within these abstract relationships, we do not see the immediate consequences of our actions on those we are connected to. In other words, without physical presence, we cannot directly observe the emotional response to our words, or the other consequences of our behaviors. We might see backlash through written word or recordings, but we don’t catch the details of facial expression or shifting body behavior, the sad glimmer of an eye, or catch of the voice. This distances us from our immediate ethical instincts, or perceptions of moral obligations towards each other. As such, unprecedented transgressions unfold into an escalation of conflict through the normalization of dehumanizing divisions between communities or identities.

This pattern unfolds in an iterative fashion, with each major jolt technology causes to the formation of human relationships. The Neolithic, Scientific, and Industrial Revolutions, for example, have all been marked by previous historical narratives. as moments where technology reshaped human relationships and ultimately led to an existential crisis over our new reality. Each one of these represented a new level of abstraction within human relationships, and therefore, communication. To illustrate the ramifications using just one example, we will zoom in on the jolt caused by the Industrial Revolution, now referred to as the crisis of the mid-twentieth century, in which globalization and industrial powers culminated in the World Wars. Globalization, enabled by the industrial revolution, was the distinctive benchmark in the evolution of human relationships towards far-reaching connections on the basis of abstraction. Allies and enemies formed under overlapping national goals, as well as value systems and ideologies, not through interpersonal community formation of neighboring peoples. As such, connections were felt in a distanced, intellectual, and therefore strategic rather than emotional way. Yet, prior to the first World War, the world had not fully confronted what globalization would mean for human relations, including the unintended, far-reaching domino effects of ally and enemy distinctions in times of conflict resulting in bloodshed of unimaginable proportions, and devastating poverty for many countries.

 These dark ramifications are infamously what laid the ground work for radical political leaders to emerge and triumph racist, xenophobic and dangerous overhauls of existing governments. Germany saw the rise of Hitler and the tragedy of the Holocaust. The Soviet Union led millions to their deaths. Outside Europe, other movements of genocide paralleled these transgressions. Even the United States, who asserted their role as the moral hero to the devastation of Germany and victor against the U.S.S.R. helped facilitate the research on eugenics used by the Nazi movement, and later accepted no blame for that role in their historical narrative. Further, they spent these years constructing Japanese internment camps, hysterically creating the witch hunt of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, and in the early throughs of violence responding to what was becoming the civil rights movement. Ultimately, the world was thrust into a forced confrontation with the question of what had allowed these mentalities and choices to unfold, and how to prevent it from happening again.

Philosophers developed a deluge of theories working to untangle the events of this historical moment. Marx, Nietzsche and Heidegger, each of whom had a role in supporting radical political projects which ultimately influenced much of this turmoil in varying degrees, all saw the role of technology in turning the wheel of historical conflict. They believed that the crisis of the century had been caused by the abandonment of philosophy alongside this evolution, thus allowing dogmatic leaders to control the trajectory of society, rather than a philosophical understanding of good. They believed that without philosophy, the lifestyle offered by this technological development was one of alienation from the self, a sense of purpose or meaning, and that it was these emotions which led people to dark and sadistic behaviors, or apathy towards them. Arendt discussed the moment as a crisis of isolation, or loneliness. Together, these resonate with the idea of the abstraction of relationships, and the unintended but very real ethical apathy that comes with these, without a conscious effort to foster empathy or a respect for what was to come as the political “solution” to the World Wars upon their conclusion- dignity.

Following the collapse of the Nazi regime, the world, lost in the devastation, was determined to articulate a preventative solution to future iterations of this moment. The United Nations was formed, and it, along with Germany as one of only three countries in the world to do so, adopted human dignity as a universal and politically protected human right. The idea was to assert that communities which exist as oppressors to other identities by material means would not be tolerated. However, it became clear quickly, as with the vague policy still debated in care bioethics, that dignity was a difficult thing to quantify and enforce. Thus, these declarations and constitutions were largely symbolic, or acts of soft power. Yet, they opened up an entire field of literature in international relations, attempting to understand the concept outside philosophical methods.

Parallel Causal Evolution of the History of Philosophy

This attempt of philosophers to produce literature which could unpack and reconcile the existential crisis brought shift in relationships by technology is not unique to the mid-twentieth century. Instead, if we recharacterize the history of philosophy in the same way as the wider historical narrative, it becomes clear that with each iteration of this pattern of increasing abstraction, philosophers in some sense return to the question of dignity. When abstraction makes us feel further from what was familiar about our humanity, we are reunited with a burning desire to reassert our value by asking what is intrinsically good about us, to assure ourselves that what was good was not lost in this reformation of human being. Thus, with each technological “benchmark,” philosophy gives us two things; a new historical framing which makes sense of the shift, and another contribution towards understanding the ontology of dignity, whether directly or through related concepts. When examined in this sense, each historical reframing and era of philosophy doesn’t, in fact, reject or undermine the previous paradigm completely, but rather, connects to and builds on it from this common thread.

By way of demonstrating a quick overview, Ancient philosophers, from, once again, Thucydides’ Archaeology within the History of the Peloponnesian War, as well as the Platonic and Aristotilean narratives of the development of civilization illustrate a clear understanding of the influence alterations of human relationships have on the development of human psychology. They fixate on questions of what characterizes human being, what is meant by human flourishing, and thus, ultimately, what is human dignity. They see the path to the human telos as analogous to the path from the family to political regime because these are the institutions which shape relationships and therefore human behavior, including communication. This is mirrored in Eastern tradition, which also focuses on determining the virtues and community relations which are intrinsic to and are best for the development of human nature. Then, with the influx of monotheistic religion and shift into a new political world order, came the birth of the Medieval Era. Here, particularly Christian philosophy in the west worked to once again reinterpret the historical narrative through religion, re-confronting and building on Ancient concepts of human dignity and morality. Amidst the Medieval Era also came the Renaissance. Some abstraction occurred here with tensions fostered from its artistic and technological innovation, clashing ideologies of pagan and Christian religion, as well through escalating class consciousness with increasing inequality.

However, the clear iterative shift came with the fall of the Medieval era and launch of the Early Modern period, first with the birth of the Scientific Revolution, where the upheaval of the Christian metaphysical reality with heliocentric theory and questioning of religious institutional power combined with huge leaps in technological innovation that put human reason in a newfound state of power. Because human reason, again, was seen as the characteristic human element within Ancient and sometimes Medieval philosophy, and therefore the foundation of dignity, this was really just another alteration in exploring the ontology of the concept in order to reconcile the overwhelming changes to present reality. Scientific and Religious philosophers, including Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Martin Luther, Newton, were both fully conscious of the stakes of this movement, each feeling their personal value as bound to their ideology and methodology, which would be lost if a contradictory historical narrative replaced their own. This fear is reflected, once again, in the horrors of burnings at the stake and introduction of subversive communication, later coined esoteric writing, necessary for each side to survive with the other.

This was continued with the escalation of the Enlightenment through the modern period. Eventually, this shift boiled over into the fusion of the new philosophic paradigm with political theory, where social contract theorists and democratic reformers sprung up in America and France, most infamously, advocating for their dignity, represented by reason, to be recognized by the state through avenues for active political participation, or participation in rational governance, and economic mobility-meaning compensation for their skills and thoughts. This was a new peak of abstraction in which individuals, and in fact entire governments, were boiled down into a representation of certain principles which were either good or bad, signaled by coded language and their participation or lack of engagement in populist revolutions. Violence was unforgiving, because this was not a fight or dialogue between people, but of principle. Suddenly, the masses were willing to die and to kill for ideas on an unprecedentedly extreme scale.

 As such, philosophers everywhere attempted to reconcile the existential crisis through unpacking the emotions responding to the lapse in dignity received from institutions and a historical reinterpretation to carve a path forward. Burke, Paine, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, among others throughout western Europe, all came together to reinterpret human dignity, and ultimately cast this as a framework for a new political order. Intimate details of human nature were explored. Burke, for example, through an examination of the ways in which our physical senses respond to different phenomena, determined a mode of analysis for human responses to broader political norms and transitions, which led to him supporting the American Revolution, but not the French, due to the French being so abstracted from interpersonal human, emotional communication and history that they had no ethical responsibility mediating their violence, where he saw the Americans as engaging in a dialogue of peoples on some level, and saw their revolution as inevitable. Part of his reasoning included the geographic distance between the American colonies and British mainland, which would preclude true emotional dialogue, or recognition of dignity across each sides to prime the debate for collaboration in finding a sustainable solution.

Soon after, this focus on human nature and historical understanding was mirrored through the intellectual prowess, unmatched since the Ancient Era, of German philosophers Hegel and Kant, who continue to directly supply a framework for contemporary conceptions of dignity. Naturally, the ethical consequences of previous abstractions within human relationships meant this framework was inherently racist and patriarchal. Nevertheless, it was a confrontation along the same thread of this history of the abstraction of communication. This brings us back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and the crisis of the mid-twentieth century, our original example, which led to the collapse of this Modern Era of philosophy, and the birth of Contemporary Thought.

There are many other parallels to this historical reframing throughout Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophies. Ultimately, however, we can use this as a starting point for interpreting our current moment of crisis, and determining how to build on these previous contributions for an understanding of both history and dignity which do not propel us into another divisive era, but instead, ask us to see this as the exacerbation of one tendency of human nature, and consider what would it look like to shift ourselves in the opposite direction to a kind of institutional structure and set of communication habits that allow us to innovate sustainably and be brought closer together? In other words, how can we use this pattern to craft a more ontologically serious project of understanding dignity?

Epistemological Benefits of a Historical Ontological Understanding of Dignity

Making use of a historical examination of the evolution of theory on the ontology of dignity in some ways holds the potential to circumvent the epistemological limitations of examining dignity analytically, trapped within the bounds of our language and sociopolitical influential context. More acutely, it allows for the synthesis of all previous observations of the limits to our access of the ontology of dignity, illuminating what, if anything, is within our philosophical grasp and worthy of serious study. As with all historicist methods, this is imperfect to the degree that we cannot escape the ways in which we are being influenced throughout this historical recharacterization. However, to be introspective to the extent we are able is better than to ignore the patterns which brought us here altogether.

In other words, because the concept of dignity has repeatedly been tied to autonomy and reason, the phenomena which we have deemed characteristically human, it would be a mistake of dangerous proportions to ignore that each of these iterations of literature around the theory of dignity have occurred in the wake of an epistemological paradigm shift, and thus, are tied to deep political pressures, while occurring in the territory of fresh, unprecedented and therefore unexplored logic. This kind of confrontation with human nature is overwhelming, and its unfamiliarity both leads us to make grave decisions, and to allow familiar biases to take over, interpreting autonomy, for example, in an exclusionary sense, even when we can’t see that in the foundation of our philosophy. Strauss’ famous critique of Heidegger, demonstrating his lack of political consciousness when trying to examine human nature via introspection as the root of his participation in the Nazi regime, as well as the notorious racism embedded in Hegel and Kant, are all demonstrative of this.

However, there is promise in continuing the quest for dignity despite our inability to fully reconcile our own contextual limitations. Hegel, for example, saw each shift in what he called “categories” of human thought, which includes our perceptions and relations to each other, as becoming more intimate with our intrinsic human freedom, or value, and saw this as an opportunity for the positive rebuilding of institutions. It is here we will pick up in the following segment, infusing these epistemological benefits and possibility for turning around this wider narrative to healthier communication practices that bring out our empathetic, rather than aggressive and divisive tendencies into the beginning of a new exploration of our dignity. It is here we mark a path forward for philosophical inquiry and human healing.

What’s in a Story?: The Role of Narrative in Polarization

Humans are storytellers by nature. Through narratives, we obtain knowledge, develop our morality, and understand the order of the world, including our role and expectations. Neuroscientists, anthropologists, historians, psychologists, and others are continuously grappling with the question of why we seem so attracted to this form of communication. Post-modernists have even raised the idea that perhaps stories are so prolific in human life that they are the only force behind the development of our realities and identities, and our entire conscious beings are merely products of socialization. So what is it that is so powerful about stories? 

Shaping Knowledge and Conception of Being

Perhaps one of the earliest and most infamous philosophers to analyze the power of the story was Plato, who recorded Socrates’s allegory of the cave. The reality and knowledge of humanity and conception of our being, according to Socrates, is shaped by the stories we are told by those who have more information, agency or power than we do. In the story, Socrates illustrates people in a cave staring at the wall where shadows are being cast by those standing behind them, telling them the stories which become their only reality. The people watching the shadows cannot turn around, so they do not realize who is behind them, nor that they are trapped in a cave. Socrates then digresses and paints the philosopher as someone who can perhaps transcend the cave. He says, however, that because the being of the people is defined entirely by the shadows, if a philosopher were to tell them about life beyond the cave, they would be defensive and not want to believe it, as it would destabilize their entire reality. This seems indicative of what we see in contemporary politics when someone shares a story that undermines our currently controlling narratives or prejudices.  

This thought is continued within many thinkers later in the era of modernity. The birth of modernity came with Machiavelli, who, in his most famous work The Prince, talked about how the virtue of statesmanship can be learned perhaps best by examining the lives of virtuous leaders before them. He also reiterates a multitude of times the distinction between the narrative a political leader must maintain for their constituents and what principles or influences should actually be guiding them. In other words, Machiavelli says that virtuous princes are putting the shadows on the wall and use stories as a powerful tool to manipulate, and this is a good thing because it sustains their power, even when it isn’t the truth.

Edmund Burke raises a similar view of stories and language in his Philosophic Inquiry into the Sublime and the Beautiful, where he says that emotion is far stronger in human passions than knowledge. Additionally, he writes that language has the power to elicit emotions and human passions more than art or stimuli of other physical senses such as sight and touch. Language allows us to be drawn both into the sublime, or that which causes awe and pain, and the beautiful, which causes relaxation and pleasure. Further, language is the medium through which we have conscious thought. He digresses a great deal on poetry, but circles back to a similar view of storytelling as a way of persuading a group of people. He also examines the importance of soft power and cultural synthesis in his writings on politics, where he outlines his theory of prudence. He explains that change and reality shifts are more persuasive, taming, and effective when introduced gradually than when they are forced. This is fusing two peoples’ overall narrative-based realities into one cohesive arc. 

Philosopher Martin Heidegger, many years later, poses the question of how human reality is shaped by meditating on the following: how one might extract the a priori understanding of being of the Dasein, or the introspective, self-aware, existentialist person who is aware of their being but who can’t answer the question of being. He suggests that, in order to formulate a question that can reach this natural understanding so that we might articulate it, one must consider everything which is persuading or shaping our understanding that is separate from nature. This he designates as historicity. While he never publishes the finished project as part of Being and Time, Heidegger says that the second part of his thesis will unpack the theories of Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle on being because these thinkers built on each other to try to answer the question. These thinkers are now the foundation of his own conscious understanding of being, so to get back to his natural thought, he has to rule out what is coming from this historicity of his thought. In other words, Heidegger says that the stories and narratives of being which are passed to us through history in some way hide from us our true being, which seems fairly in line with the post-modernist and platonic ideal that we are a product of the narratives we are socialized to adopt.

 In sum, each of these thinkers paints stories as a powerful force. They comment very little on whether they are good or bad, but describe their significance and utility in communications and politics, whether their function is to divide or bring people together. Stories, for these thinkers, are a means to an end, but a means of the highest force.

Stories and Polarization

In being the most powerful tool, stories have caused a lot of trouble. More seriously, stories have been a major force escalating polarization, politically and otherwise, within human communication, as seen in the polarization of contemporary politics. Humans have crafted their realities from stereotypes, generalized narratives, and assumptions because they are so deeply ingrained in how we think and view the world. However, the truth is that many of these persuasions are implicit in our psyches and we don’t even realize when they are the cornerstones of our decisions. 

Political parties, partisan ideology, and political stances, as a key example, have become entrenched in narratives crafted by the media and campaigns of opposite parties. These stereotypes include labeling liberals as urban “snowflakes” who are over-educated with no common-sense, rich, and engage in giving back to make themselves feel good, among other narratives. In terms of Republicans, those stereotypes include claims that they are backwoods, backwards, white supremacists who force their religion and nostalgia for a less inclusive time on everyone, among other narratives. On both sides, these narrative stereotypes have completely dehumanized people. 

In many ways, narratives can also put restrictions on civic political agency via self-censorship. When people believe that we are “less than” because of a narrative and don’t trust us or our abilities, or when we don’t see our own true strength or capacity for change because of that burden we are less likely to engage or demonstrate leadership. Narratives, in many ways, compromise our civic integrity and democratic value as a voice at the table in political discourse. Sometimes, because we are so afraid of falling into a narrative, we simply don’t speak at all. In other words, we mask our identities and live our lives feeling desperate for but unable to achieve authenticity, often making us more resentful of our opposition, or perceived opposition, and therefore, more defensive in all conversations, and less able to find allies, supporters, common ground or collaborators even if we wanted to engage despite alienation.

Stories as Path to Depolarization: Finding Common Ground

While storytelling can clearly have negative consequences in pushing people apart, is there a way in which it can have a positive effect, even in undoing trends like polarization? Reaching into the heart of someone’s humanity, and influencing their emotions doesn’t have to alienate them. It can also be used to share a commonality, and from that, find the principles and values which bring us together, and can get us to cooperate as a community and as a species. For example, several months ago when given the opportunity to speak with Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush, we discussed the current division in politics and the importance of depolarization efforts to the stability of American democracy. She shared with me a story that she has shared with many others, and believes defines the philosophy and success of her career.

Once, when on a trip to Saudi Arabia, Townsend found herself caught in a tense meeting between President Bush and Saud al-Faysal over a 9-11 negotiation. When it seemed like endless division was going to keep them from getting anywhere, Townsend heard Abdullah playing with something in his pocket. She asked what it was, and he revealed he had been jiggling his Islamic prayer beads. Despite the dangerous risk of violating Saudi Law, Townsend immediately revealed her own Catholic rosary in her own pocket, to demonstrate they were not so different. At this point, they were able to move forward in the discussion and work together. Upon parting ways, Abdullah gifted her his prayer beads as “a symbol of trust to give to President Bush” to signify that he saw Townsend as honest and was grateful to have her as a partner. While not a story directly, religion, and symbolic religious objects, imply a narrative of a person and their beliefs, and therefore, are still connected to the means of story-telling. Common ground has since become a hallmark of her career.

If you’ve had the opportunity to meet American University’s 2020 Sine Fellow Alphonso Jackson, you’ll hear him tell share story upon story about his childhood as the youngest of many siblings with parents who he greatly admires, and an incredible life that has taken him everywhere from marching in Bloody Sunday to serving in the cabinet of the White House. The first time we met, I shared with Alphonso my dedication to depolarization, and he gave the room one of his most central kernels of wisdom. The three rules to live by, he said, were to (1) speak without being offensive, (2) listen without getting defensive, and to (3) always leave people with their human dignity. He then proceeded to share a number of stories about when he used these rules to find common ground, sharing stories and little pearls of wisdom from his parents and anecdotes about learning lessons in life. It was clear that for Alphonso, stories were not just a way to persuade, but a way to stay grounded, learn, bring people together, and cure division. He and Townsend share remarkably different stories and worked in different parts of the world, Townsend in foreign affairs and Jackson in domestic policy and civil rights activism, but both used stories to surpass even the most turbulent times dividing humanity.

Outside of the world of politics and policy, a dear friend of mine, Daryl Davis, has been using stories for deradicalization of KKK members for years and has since become a worldwide activist for civil discourse on top of being a famous black blues musician. Daryl and I have talked for hours, sharing stories about how he has listened to the stories and opinions of others in order to establish trust and dignity, as Townsend and Jackson did so that he might then share his own story and bring them out of a life of hate. By then sharing these stories of disengagement around the world, and demystifying and depowering symbols of the narrative of hate by keeping robes of former members and allowing people to touch them, Daryl has been able to soften people to the idea of redemption and humanity not being immoral even when someone has gone down the wrong path. It is not that you should condone their hate, or feel the weight of that call to action burden, for him. It is that you recognize that narrative has shaped them also, and by demystifying likewise the narrative of those they have been persuaded to hate through proximity, or contact theory as sociologists sometimes like to call it, the propaganda or conceptual narrative unravels.

I had the opportunity to speak to one of the reformed members, Scott Shepherd, and he explained to me that before joining the Klan, he had tried to join the Mafia and a number of other extremist groups because he was simply looking for purpose. He had a mentor and guardian who was black, but the narrative which provided him inclusion he jumped at, and now looks back in horror about how he let this power of story-based persuasion steer him away from those he loved into a force of evil. He now lives his life warning others about this power of narrative and encourages them to focus on Daryl, Jackson and Townsends version of storytelling of the now, of common ground, and of humanity, rather than depolarizing stories which focus on difference and drive us apart.

Better Angels, the grassroots depolarization nonprofit, has realized the power of stories for some time now. One of their hallmark marketing strategies at the founding of the organization was the television of a friendship that occurred between a Republican and Democrat where they took a road trip together and realized where they could find common ground. Those who work for the group, including James Coan, founder of his own depolarization group some time ago, have conceptualized the power of this through emotional theory, where like Townsend said, stories of humanity and commonality are able to take us from disgust to the other end of the axis towards trust and mutual respect, or feeling dignified and therefore seeing dignity in others.

The truth is, the longer you work in the world of depolarization, the more you realize that there are institutional, structural strategies, but an overwhelming heart of the work is centered around stories, representative of shared humanity and a bridge to collaboration rather than separation. I could share the stories of an endless number of people I’ve met all over the world who have used this method for depolarizing work, each as inspiring as the last. But it’s important to note that in each of these cases, what was really at work was stories against stories. Broader narratives, constructed by mass social forces from media to political propaganda and other manufactured stereotypes, countered by personal anecdotes that hit on a deeper human emotion than pure resonation with a vague trend. Stories, as such, are not holistically good or bad in communication. Anecdotal evidence is not comprehensive or representative seems to be the trouble behind why it can be used to drive people apart.

This has become a wider and wider talking point within academia and political discourse especially. It is often looked down on because of its focus on the particular or overgeneralization which is not representative of reality. However, while other evidence, such as quantitative seems important for that reason, it cannot replace all anecdotal evidence and be totally superior, as it leaves out a deeper element of information that can not be conveyed in numbers, and statistics can be just as misleading. Rather, the balance of evidence seems to be the takeaway, and stories, are simply one powerful tool. Philosophically, argued as perhaps the most powerful tool. And with that, we should wield them thoughtfully.

From Many or One? An Ethical and Prudential Evaluation of How to Approach the Reform of American Civil Discourse

Polarization: the buzzword defining the mass perception of the current state of civil discourse. In the United States, the rift between primary political parties, red and blue, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, has become an obsessive fixation of the media, political candidates, and citizens at large. Tribalism, populism, and debates over tolerance seem to be the defining trends of our political communication culture. Even within one side of the divide, in-fighting has reached an apex, where Democrats accuse each other of not being “real Democrats” or “liberal enough,” and Republicans split between that social extremism and moderate conservatism. However, in the midst of it all, it’s hard to see how things could be any other way. Despite our best intentions, working toward our respective visions of the future of the nation, so much seems to have spiraled out of our control, from the traditions of slander and scandal between politicians, and the editorialist and exploitative nature of the media, to the increasingly traditional separation of those of opposing parties in everything from dinner conversation and friendships to marriage. Individuals and even those in power, often don’t know where to start in undoing the seemingly endless cycle creating the mess. However, there currently seems to be a growing feeling of an obligation to try. Consequently, a wave of nonprofits dedicated to improving civility and bipartisan collaboration, as well as academic research around the subject and institutional changes have sprung up, particularly since the outcome of the infamous election of 2016.

The question is, with all of these varied efforts, which is the right approach, either ethically or prudentially? From the individual or local standpoint, sometimes changing one-on-one conversational habits seems to be the only thing within reach. However, if one is moved by a moral obligation to facilitate change in civil discourse, aren’t they also, in some way, morally obligated to doing so in the most effective and far-reaching way? What, exactly, is the point in bailing water in a sinking ship when the hole hasn’t been plugged? There are root problems, or structural influences behind the current state of communication we are observing. However, is it politically possible to launch a structural or institutional approach? Further, what other ethical dilemmas might result? To make a proper evaluation requires the examination of the structural roots of these symptoms. While a vast number exist, two major ones will be examined here: the electoral structures creating a tendency for polarization, and the exacerbation of this tendency by the technological changes in media, or mass communication practices.

The Electoral Contribution

One of the most important mechanisms behind the function of the American Representative government is elections. Within our political system, to achieve election, a candidate must accrue an incredibly high level of public attention and support, particularly monetary support. This creates two failures in communication; one related to maintaining incumbency, and one to elections at large. For candidates in office, to compete with the capitalist marketing of other competitors, they must spend more time trying to get re-elected than anything else. This causes them to favor monetary interests over constituent concerns- one of the origins of the “Big Money” corruption in politics. Even if a candidate’s intentions are good, the path to power is inherently structured to erode the power of the people. As a result, civil discourse becomes more difficult and less incentivized, as citizens feel that their political voices are useless.

For candidates not yet in office, each must find a way to stand out by demonstrating what makes them unique. This is accomplished by leveraging constituent interests and fears to create a campaign narrative. When voting, constituents balance their private and public interests based on what visions they have for themselves and the state. They also consider what will be prudent to support politically based on how overlapping public and private interests are. Philosophers, from the ancient period on, have been struggling to understand this psychology behind political engagement and voting behavior. In Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian thesis determines that the psychological elements behind political engagement are fear, honor, and profit. This relates closely to the anatomy of the soul outlined later in Plato’s Republic, which describes the three human motivators as desire (profit), thumos (honor), and reason (works to control and interpret fear). In modern theory, Machiavelli and Nietzsche focus their view of political psychology further on strength and power, or resentment towards the strong. Regardless of their nuances, the takeaway is that the majority of political theorists, by attempting to map these common influences, agree that there are psychological patterns to making electoral choices. The traditions of political campaigning in the United States are crafted around this assumption- the most logical way to determine what will garner attention as a candidate is to think about what commonly motivates voters and to try to play into that.

In the earliest days of the nation, constituents were most concerned about the dissolution of the state, and what its future should look like. Thus, the priorities of a voter in choosing a candidate were things like moral integrity, history of leadership and demonstration of loyalty, as well as a vision for the future of the country. No history of elections or rhetoric beyond that maintained from Europe existed. Collaborative mores were habituated due to colonial survival and revolution, as described by Tocqueville. Thus, scandal and slander didn’t need to be as heavily involved in campaign narratives. Rather, uniqueness was still achievable by ideology alone. As a result, this generation has the ability to engage in serious political debate and proceed to an outcome or compromise without being distracted by simply attacking the humanity or character of the other side.

By the 1950s, however, several generations of political activity and rhetorical traditions had unfolded to where uniqueness in policy approaches and values was difficult to establish, and not enough for a candidate to stand out. Instead, candidates had to engineer a reason to stand out. Recognizing fear as a primary motivator of voters, a tradition of engineering emergencies to leverage votes was born. WWII, broadcasted to the masses from TV and radio, shaped the American public’s greatest fear into that of totalitarianism. The Republican Party, which was trying to reinstate a political majority following the era of Democratic control and influx of incredibly progressive policy, including FDR’s New Deal, exploited this fear by painting Communism as the new totalitarian threat and engineering the McCarthy era of campaigning as the savior mechanism to this artificial emergency. McCarthy himself was never consistently Republican or Democrat but had the demagogic personality to uphold the campaign. We saw similar patterns with the War on Drugs, and ­­Regan’s original Make America Great Again campaign, as well as in how the United States marketed the anti-terror movement following 9/11.

In each of these examples, however, the same general causal mechanism is at work. The fear motivating the public is identified and used to establish an artificial emergency in which the candidate is painted as the only conceivable hero. This heightens the tendency not just for the selection of the candidate, but for the expansion of the power of their institutional position. This is because there is now a decline in the public’s confidence in knowing how to solve their problem, as they had not previously been aware of the emergency, so it’s more reasonable to trust in the hero figure who did to take care of the situation. This is the very pattern warned against by Tocqueville. It’s especially dangerous in American politics as a Lockean prerogative, established in the founding American documents, justifies an executive to toss out the rule of law in the event of an “emergency.” However, the term “emergency” is not well defined, so the only thing that prevents the rule being abused to result in complete authoritarianism is the involvement of the democratic voice of constituents calling out such exploitation, which requires a healthy level of participation and investment.

For this campaign strategy to be successful, it has to be paired with a validation mechanism, in which anyone who opposes the demagogue in power must be identified as disloyal, and therefore, a contributor to the emergency. Citizens, obsessed with weeding these people out, begin to agree to heightened limitations on freedoms such as privacy. For the McCarthy era, this enabled the infamous era of accusations of internal communist activities and unconstitutional persecution. Post 9/11, it was Americans allowing government spying on domestic users, racial profiling in airports, and incredibly invasive security checkpoints. Within civil discourse, this translates as pushing people farther apart on opposite sides of this line in the sand, encouraging tribal partisan behavior, or polarization. It also translates psychologically as feeling more powerless and part of an impenetrable system, and likely to disengage more from political conversation, particularly with policymakers, as they are reminded repeatedly by these losses in the freedom that they are subservient to the state.

Fast-forwarding to apply this theory to contemporary politics, using the defining example of our current state of political communication upheaval, Donald Trump has followed the same pattern of McCarthy in being selected as the figurehead of his campaign. He also was able to leverage the feelings of isolation resulting from a lack of community or identity and fears resultant in racism, xenophobia, and the like by creating artificial emergencies such as the crisis at the border. He painted his opponent as being the cause of the fears of his targeted electorate, and those who opposed him as being disloyal to the cause and therefore part of this evil or cause of the things most feared. Hillary Clinton, for example, was representative of the establishment- of the way things were, which had not been working for those who were being targeted by the Trump campaign. She was also associated with her husband, who was responsible for the decision viewed as the cause of the economic turmoil being experienced in these communities (e.g. sending manufacturing away through the shifting trade balance with China). Those who supported her were often in urban, liberal hubs, not experiencing these same pressures, and in fact, very much ignorant to them, and therefore, focused on other political initiatives. 

By intoning complicity with these groups, and catering to the fearful ones, Trump was able to make it clear who would be protected by him, even though his policy preferences didn’t necessarily align with their interests. His rhetoric was familiar, referencing the comfortable, white male predecessors iconic of a less progressive American tradition when these communities were less vulnerable and things like racism were more acceptable. His purposeful political incorrectness made him a clear anti-establishment figure, which was both indicative of possible high risk, but also guaranteeing of radical change, for better or for worse. For many Americans, who felt they had nothing left to lose and no other opportunity relevant to them, or giving them a political voice, he seemed like the hopeful choice. This is where there is an overlap between the Obama electorate and Trump’s, or some of the more surprising demographic groups one by the Trump campaign, including many women whom he directly offended. However, his infamous dog-whistling painted him, to those minority groups and those interested in protecting them, as something to fear. His blatant disregard for restraints on executive power or traditions of state function inflates that fear to its most extreme end. Thus, for both groups, the stakes are incredibly high and emotional, making this an example of tribal polarization that resonates with those experiencing it as the worst state of civil discourse we have ever seen. The urgency for change has reached a peak. The point to remember, however, is that the very structure of our government and elections established the traditions which perhaps inevitably led to this, suggesting a structural solution is the only solution to civil discourse worth exploring, but also the degree to which this would be seemingly impossible.

The Technological Curve

The influx of technological advancement, such as social media, has added another dimension to the situation, as it has increased the speed at which communication happens, allowing for a more natural blending in of false or misleading information, and therefore, common acceptance of it, changing the quality and nature of trust within debate and civil discourse. It has also changed the intensity of radicalism acceptable, and allowed for the faster building of movements, heightening the fear that the opposite party or opinion will gain traction and destroy the vision one holds for the future of the state faster than can be stopped. Finally, the phenomena of echo-chambers have made all of these fears artificially more vibrant, and misunderstanding or ignorance between groups much deeper. All of this has contributed both to heightened extremism, polarization, and intolerance in our current culture of civil discourse, being used largely as a tool with the actors motivating the campaigns previously unpacked, as well as by those trying to resist them, creating a pattern in heightened sensationalism on both sides, in almost a Cold War of civil discourse. 

Evaluation: Grassroots vs. Structural Initiatives

Having taken stock of the mechanisms leading to the current state of civil discourse, an evaluation must be made, morally and prudentially, of what would be the right approach to undoing them. The grassroots perspective has been largely headlined by several local and nonprofit initiatives. On the local end, for example, some communities have taken to painting benches or tables a particular color to mark them as a safe place for civil discourse, hoping to encourage more conversation. On a larger grassroots scale, full organizations have sprung up to systemize these conversational tools in a way that can be spread easily to a wide array of places. Better Angels, for example, is a nationally reaching nonprofit which brings free civil discourse workshops to local communities and college campuses. They aim to maintain equal participation from what they refer to as “reds” and “blues,” or traditionally conservative learning vs. traditionally liberally leaning people. Their workshops come in three varieties to meet communities with the methods most resonating to them, but all involve a debrief for opposite sides to reflect on the origins of their political identities, and what psychological influences may have created the identities they don’t share. Bridging the Gap is another Washington, D.C. based bipartisanship initiative, which offers professional training and public resources, as well as scholarships to try to encourage better and more frequent policy debates. More specifically, within education, there are many civil discourse and communication-related projects, such as American University’s very own Project on Civil Discourse. These often produce both workshops and research on the subject.

These organizations are far from alone. Rather, they exist in a wave of projects that have sprung up, which aim to a degree to work together, but have hesitated in making partnerships to expand the traction of their work as they all fear being associated with an organization which fails to maintain the bipartisan dedication. In other words, the anxiety of polarization is so high, that it is creating road-blocks in projects to combat it because no one can fully trust anyone to not fall into the red-blue tribes. The same is occurring within grant distribution towards these projects. So, while a bunch of small initiatives teaming up at first seems like a nice compromise between structural and local change, it may be just as futile as working on the local level without targeting the structural roots of communication failures. 

But is it prudent, or ethical, to work from an institutional and structural upheaval perspective, either? To create a structural change, the most common considerations, as explained previously, are a literal restructuring of the government’s elections systems, public media, speech, etc. The reason is that to change education, the values passed from parent to child, or the habits of both local communities and media, which shape political psychology, you need to change the institutional practices that build these things, which come from governmental institutions and delegations of freedom. This drifts into an incredibly slippery slope of limiting civic freedoms and freedom of the market. This is visible through the simultaneous wave of free speech initiatives popping up in opposition to efforts to control things like hate speech, or fake news on social media. It also would be politically nearly impossible, unless one were to utilize the same sensational fear which fuels the current state, a major hypocritical choice at best. Finally, a concentration of power would have to head the change, which makes the rest of the nation’s future dependent on their morality. As seen in other authoritarian states, while it can all feel great while everyone’s being taken care of, it only takes one set of leadership making bad choices to reach a very dark place, at which point no one will know how to politically associate in order to fix it, having been disengaged for so long. 

Thus, society needs to balance control over the practices promoted and the desire to make the ethical evaluation of communication practices a more democratic process. Space between is occupied by one final option, less clear to explore, but perhaps quite effective. The social movement approach is hardly unique historically. Compassion becomes virtue within the Civil Rights Movement, LGBTQ+ Advocacy, the fight for gay marriage, Women’s Suffrage, and more. All of these combined grassroots initiatives of civil disobedience, media attention, and local conversations with the push for legislation, but not without the simultaneous shift in a large portion of public values, so that the change would be more democratic. Society cannot necessarily rely on this transition for civil discourse, as the media previously used slacktivism online, and civil disobedience loses its power, particularly as sensationalism is lost as quickly as it’s gained. All of this happens through communication, rhetorical and symbolic, and the entire point is to address the failures of communication. However, there certainly must be something that can be learned from it as a clue to what to do.

No Labels is an organization that is proving a great example of this mode of work. They are trying to work to provide local resources and grassroots tools for dialogue through guidebooks on how to approach policy and discussion events. However, they are also making soft strides in trying to habituate communication change from the inside of government, through their lobbying to establish the Problem Solvers Caucus, which brings together a bipartisan balance of Congress members to solve policy under a set of different communication methods and overcome traditional partisan blocks. Critics have accused the caucus of not “solving many problems.” As a concept, it is an interesting hybrid of a more democratic grassroots approach trying to create a government change to find solutions without a total overhaul of the system, and maybe create a democratic space to find further change. Rather than delegating power to a tiny group, it ensures that those working towards change are committed to a certain set of predetermined values such as bipartisanship. The question is how to take this approach to the next level, of one with more traction, which can “solve more problems?” Is there a way to speed up the change without losing ethical value?

In sum, there is certainly no easy fix in the race to solve the crisis of political communication. The stakes for the communities being hurt by current failures, as well as for preserving the democratic stability of our country, have reached a peak crossroads. However, the political feasibility and ethical considerations are both an all-consuming and unclear part of any transition. The questions and influences that have brought us here are hardly new, hence their having been fleshed out for theorists of numerous generations. The U.S. is just one in a whole host of countries experiencing parallel communication problems. However, by pulling back from the anxiety of the current generation and reflecting on the origin of the situation, as well as the critical consequences of each path forward, society approaches the best chance of finding one that works and can restore the American mores of E. Pluribus Unum.

Self-Interest Well-Understood: A Doctrine in Need of Revival

“The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance of each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes …” – Thucydides, Pericles’ funeral oration, 431 BCE

If one were to take a step back and observe the progression of American culture from its beginnings to modern day, a consistent trend of materialism, or more particularly individualism, would be evident. Certainly, there has always been a compulsion for Americans to become secluded into one’s own, focusing on their own interests, whether it be their careers, family, or wealth. Indeed, this phenomenon is not absent from American culture today. However, the recent rise of polarization across economic, political, and social spectrums in the United States, in tandem with this habitual individualism, is cause for alarm; turning inward and pursuing one’s own interests is now accompanied with perceptions of growing maliciousness towards those who remain outside of an immediate inner circle, like family or close friends. These outgroups could be distant and faceless individuals or even neighbors within a given community. With this growing tension between the private individual and their respective communities, it is essential to reexamine the value of individual and communal self-interests in order to find what is truly facilitating America’s divisive climate.

Before assessing American individualism with the contemporary trend of polarization, the social atmosphere of the United States at its founding should be examined; the population’s ancestral diversity and lack of roots formed communities that were particularly telling of the society’s unique sociological behavior. Through this behavior, Americans were an interesting breed to the rest of the world at the turn of the Nineteenth century. American citizens at this time wholly rejected the status quo of centralized rule and established their own colonies, social orders, and man-made institutions with the assistance of geographic isolation. Social assimilation was a spontaneous and organic process which was fueled by the diverse social climate. This contributed to the creation of a democracy that not only emphatically empowered the individual as the Framers envisioned but, also, attributed outstanding importance to communal associations. Moreover, there was a reluctance to willingly cede responsibility beyond these associations to governing authorities, due to the oppressive shadow that the British empire had left on the colonies as well as other driving factors like religious work ethic. These factors, among other influences such as the equal access to socioeconomic mobility, primed materialism to become imbued into the mores of American culture. It is here that materialism reveals itself as a motivating influence within American society; however, the sentiment of individualism has the potential to quickly follow and remains a looming threat to shared communal responsibilities.

There is perhaps no other thinker that has elaborated more on this topic than social and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville. It was Tocqueville –  a Frenchman – who came to the United States in 1831 and marveled at America’s unique culture. His work, Democracy in America, although parsing many aspects of American democracy, observed the average township’s rejection of centralized authority as well as the culture’s emphasis on the individual, his interests, and the ability to accord it well with others. Tocqueville’s ideas are especially critical of the potential ill-effects of individualism, namely that of utter neglect for those outside of one’s immediate associations. He, more importantly, observed how Americans combatted these ill-effects with the idea of “la doctrine de l’intérêt bien entendu,” or the doctrine of self-interest well understood. This doctrine held that virtue – one of happiness and usefulness – need not be found entirely in one’s pursuit of their own interests, but rather finding where it overlaps with their neighbors in their own pursuits. It awakens elements of discipline and moderation while still pursuing one’s own personal interests.

Although Tocqueville remains rather abstract in describing this phenomenon, the doctrine of self-interest well understood has very practical applications. For instance, imagine a suburban neighborhood during a snowy winter. As snow begins to fall one morning, the members of a neighborhood put their shovels to good use. At first they prioritize their porches and driveways and gradually work toward the public sidewalks and streets. Each neighbor understands, and is obliged to uphold, their responsibility to the community, despite the sidewalks and streets being public domain. In turn, they commit their share of shoveling accordingly along with their fellow neighbors. Alternatively, each neighbor could shovel their own respective property, as one consumed with individualism would be inclined to do, and relinquish the shared responsibility of shoveling public sidewalks and streets to a governing authority – a dangerous potentiality that Tocqueville’s refers to as “soft despotism.” Although this example is exaggerated and in some sense romanticized, it captures the essence of what Tocqueville articulates in his writing. The shared responsibilities of neighbors, despite implying sacrifice, are useful to the individual and the community when faced with certain everyday obstacles, like unplowed rows. The result, in this case, is cleared sidewalks and streets for every community member to use. Yet, the threat of individualism continuously compels neighbors to delegate these shared responsibilities to government authorities, which has the potential to expand and even exploit these communal responsibilities – which is where one can understand American culture today.

The notion that contemporary American culture has succumbed to soft despotism is unsurprising, as Tocqueville understood this trend as characteristically organic to democracies. As time passed, Americans began to prefer having increasingly less public responsibilities, and consequently began to focus their efforts inward. Today, American society accepts that the government retains a sizable amount of responsibilities, such as public welfare and infrastructure. Despite this, the attributes of American society that Tocqueville notes in his travels are still relevant and impactful. His observations describe his understanding of American “social theory” extensively, isolating the qualities that establish America as “a society possessing no roots, no memories, no prejudices, no routine, no common ideas, no national character, yet with a happiness a hundred times greater than ours [France’s] … How are they welded into one people? By a community of interests.” It is not outlandish to think this of America’s current culture, for it continues to embody a diversity of race, ethnicity, language, and opinion. The divergence from this social theory, however, is revealed as soft despotism overtakes communities. What Tocqueville failed to speculate was the potential influence that negative externalities can have within a modern democracy, most notably mass media and social media, each having the ability to penetrate the individual’s inner circle and warp their perception of his or her surroundings. These externalities typically enforce hollow stereotypes and heuristics that emphasize economic, political, and social differences for ratings, social agency, or even electoral backing.

In 2017 the reality of both mass media and social media’s influence cannot be dismissed, especially because it has the capability of altering individual’s social and political dispositions. This influence is more potent as the American sociopolitical climate continues to become polarized. According to the Pew Research Center’s polling, there is a growing division between left and right-leaning ideologies and their trust of specific media outlets. Outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post have come to be more trusted by individuals who self-identify as left-leaning, while outlets like Fox News and The Sean Hannity Show have come to be trusted by individuals who self-identify as right-leaning. As the majority of individuals continue to receive their news via television and cable, ideological and partisan skews in positions reinforce platforms that emphasize the differences of out-groups. As a result, individuals are less inclined to see the similarities of their neighbors in order to find common interests, as they are portrayed as irredeemably different on account of their perceived affiliations. On social media platforms, the autonomy of associating with others of like ideologies and dispositions eliminates the effort to find common interests with other community members. In a way, individuals form their own digital communities based on an understanding of common interests, like senses of humor, recreational activities, careers, and political ideas. Sorting associations by like political ideas, in particular, is especially noticeable on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, as Pew Research notes that many conservative individuals friend only those with similar dispositions, while more liberal individuals unfriend those with differing political opinions. Social media, in this sense, can be understood as an incredibly powerful tool when utilized by political organizations and social causes, such as national and state parties and social causes. Subjugation to mass media and social media outlets implies that individuals are able to form perceptions of communities, demographics, and factions without ever physically interacting with them, which proves to be costly, as it only feeds the growing trend of polarization and divisive sentiment.

It is important to note that Tocqueville does acknowledge that it is within American mores to recognize the differences of our neighbors, a behavior he attributes to the “equality of conditions,” or the facility of socioeconomic mobility in early American society. Indeed, it was once an integral aspect of American culture for individuals recognize the differences of others, particularly in relation to wealth and affluence, as it was relatively easy to work towards this type of success. However, this is purely in an economic capacity; today, warped dispositions of individuals are primarily based on emphasizing political, ideological, or social differences. Unfortunately, as the responsibilities of governing institutions become consolidated and expanded upon as a result of the despotic nature of democracy, so too is the relevance of the elected officials, which creates an incentive for campaigns to use divisive rhetoric to garner a following. A recent example of this was during the 2016 election cycle, as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sought to isolate her opponents’ following as “deplorable,” while Republican candidate Donald Trump contrasted elite Americans from “forgotten” Americans. As each candidates’ respective followings received this news through their preferred mass media or social media outlets, their perceptions of opposing were reinforced with malicious overtones, creating starker in-groups and out-groups.

Ideally, community members would understand each others’ fundamental differences and would focus on similarities and common interests – like being snowed in. Further, they would do this without forming preconceptions and make efforts to find some common ground even with knowledge of held differences. Although this simply is not the case today, Tocqueville’s proposed doctrine of self-interest well understood, while being a useful method of repudiating soft despotism, is also useful in nullifying the negative externalities that emphasize hollow and trivial differences. Tocqueville attributes great value to this doctrine in its modest achievability and its accommodation “to the weaknesses of man … [for] it personal interest against itself, and to direct the passions, it makes use of the spur that excites them.” In this context, the “weaknesses of man ” can be understood as the human impulse that drives individuals inward; the doctrine, however, makes use of motivation surrounding self-interests and projects it towards to community. Overcoming the negative influences of mass media and social media, which many mindlessly depend on as aspects of modern society, is essential to rediscover the unique aspects of early American society.

To clarify, Tocqueville’s message is not politically charged. He continuously mulls over the relationship between equality and liberty, believing that the former should not be pursued at the expense of the latter. Throughout Democracy in America, he warns of the possible sleepless complacency to soft despotism, tyranny of the majority, and communitarianism. He proposes ideas that, instead, are not “lofty,” but taken up with a certain willingness and gumption. As American society continues to stray further from Tocqueville’s observations of early American culture, his illustration of American society falling victim to individualism should be considered:

like a stranger to the destiny of all others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone.

This dark picture describes what is occurring in today’s social climate in an imperfect fashion, for it does not acknowledge the negative dispositions that individuals hold today over others with differences.   Individuals may essentially be strangers to all others, but they also hold contempt for those who are believed to hold differences in ideas, opinions, and in some cases language and race. The common neighbor, in this sense, does not only lack value to an individual’s self-interested pursuits, but now embodies everything that challenges those pursuits if a particularly skewed outlet isolates their differences as such.

If American society wishes to do away with its entrenching, divisive sentiment, Tocqueville’s doctrine of self-interest well understood is a critical starting point. It is not an incredibly high-minded feat to pursue and achieve, but it is rather one of humility that boasts the potential for a “regulated, temperate, moderate, [and] farsighted” society. Certainly, it is open for debate as to whether centralized governments should return much of the responsibilities that it has stripped, but the doctrine can indisputably bring the polar ends of the spectrum closer together, so as to realize their common similarities before their differences. Moving forward, Americans should be conscious of how media outlets portray those within perceived out-groups, and make a reasonable effort to understand not only their fellow neighbor’s common interests but how neglecting their position in the community on the basis of their differences serves only to divide further.