“Polarisation is communication. Communication is also polarisation.” These were the words by which Friso Fennema, Director of Communications at the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, opened the National Congress for Public Communication (PubCom19). His opening keynote framed the challenge that many people in the audience are faced with in their daily work. During the afternoon the congress’ theme of polarisation was tackled in various ways by the different speakers: local versus national versus international, from intuition to ratio as well as grasped from the poles of society towards the centre.
Friso Fennema concluded that a national government cannot take the role of a bridge builder. Moreover, he was pretty convinced that there are no simple solutions for polarisation. He did wonder, however, whether timely communication could prevent (further) polarisation.
Following Friso Fennema, ‘three leading ladies’ Froukje de Jonge, deputy mayor of the provincial town of Stadskanaal, Fidan Ekiz, journalist and documentary maker, and Hanneke Felten, researcher and project manager at Movisie, presented their different perspectives. Froukje de Jonge examined polarisation at a local level, providing a moving example of Mr Meijer’s ‘bench’ . She was pretty coherent about a couple of things: it is fundamental to be honest and not to sell nonsense, people are essentially good, and you really need to want to understand ‘the other’.
Fidan Ekiz took us on a journey that crossed borders, those of the national-international as well as those of the cognitive-emotional. She described her experience of an increasingly polarised country of The Netherlands in an emotional way, based on the relationship with her father. She struck a chord with me. To me, her story confirmed the importance of acting with empathy. Hanneke Felten took a passionate, analytical approach, addressing the force field of prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination. Just like Friso Fennema, Hanneke Felten referenced Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow). People act according to two systems: a fast, associative and (more) unconscious one (system 1), and a slow, rational and (more) conscious one (system 2).
So I wonder, with a challenging topic like polarisation, could we move in a smooth way and ‘dance’ between our systems? Could we, as such, try to make that friction deliver radiance? Could we create a fine balancing act between all angles, combining our inner compass ánd will power? I had the role of conference chair that afternoon, something I enjoy doing. To me the conference attendees are of the utmost importance. I always make that very explicit. I state that I am there for them. That might sound very obvious, but very often I observe a conference chair, a debate leader or moderator, who are there to be seen, to build a performance. Together with the speakers on stage they perform a joint act and do not necessarily aim for true interaction with the audience. There is the ‘odd question and answer session’, with people often being told to keep their contribution to a minimum. I obviously understand why this is the case and do enjoy a good performance. However, I actually believe that many in the audience could really contribute to the subject. Particularly with conferences for ‘professionals’ and/or ‘experts’ this is often the case. Just this particular time these people are 'coincidentally' in the audience and not on stage.
Had it been possible that afternoon to ‘collide with’ the public on the theme of polarisation, I would have wanted to try that. The room was 'traditional theater style', with the seats in rows going up. That kind of set-up did not really allow for such moving dynamic. It was difficult to get up together and take different positions regarding the theme. This way of working is based on my 'Deep Democracy training and experience'. With a group of people one explores a theme together. People are invited to express their views, the rest can take a position regarding that particular point of view. You can either sympathise with or, on the contrary, take a very different position. With people moving according to the various positions, different patterns take shape. This allows for insight, appreciation, surprise and potentially further debate. One thing that I find so incredibly meaningful and beautiful with this, is the opportunity for people to participate without using words. You can express if you agree or disagree non-verbally, and sometimes you are not able, or willing, to use words. This way of working embraces and releases the energy that is in the room. It can be very powerful, but needs to be done with care.
One of the fundamental beliefs in Deep Democracy is that of the ‘fluidity of roles’. A role (an opinion, a point of view, an attitude, emotions, etc.) is not static and you can ‘live many’. When trained in or being part of a session built on Deep Democracy, you will eventually see that the role of the other actually lives in you and vice versa. Your role also ‘lives in the other’. The Lewis Method of Deep Democracy in which I have been trained has steps by which you can make that explicit. The intention being that the ‘unconscious’ is brought into the ‘consciousness’. This allows you to appreciate one another, to grow together, move forward together, all elements that are very important in polarisation. Two starting points are part of the fundamentals within a Deep Democracy debate:
- No one has a monopoly on the truth
- The relationship remains intact, we argue to grow together
Can you imagine applying this in a debate about polarisation? Beautiful? Although we did not apply this way of debating at this conference, the opinions and ideas of the speakers about polarisation flowed very nicely. The speakers recognised each other, without speaking purely within their own bubble ('echo chamber'). Shada Islam was the last guest that afternoon. Shada and I had a conversation seated in comfortable armchairs. Shada zoomed out and took an international, multicultural perspective. She then zoomed in and shared with the audience her point of view that the local heroes are going to create the future. According to Shada, the real heroes are the mayors, the local authorities, and the citizens. Such a wonderful vision for an audience made up of many people working day in day out at a local level with citizens and public authorities.
"From communication at the heart of policy, to communication at the heart of society." That's how Friso concluded. I thought he put that well. The 'word cloud' captured a nice summary of a meaningful afternoon debating public communication and polarisation.
Footnote: The Galjaardcommissie had worked hard all year to find a nice combination of speakers. The congress was organised by them (the congress was previously called the Galjaard lecture, in honor of Chiel Galjaard, in collaboration with, and supported, by Logeion (professional association for communication) and took place on 31st October in ‘t Spant in Bussum. A very important part of the afternoon was the presentation of the Galjaardprijs, which was won this year by the 'We Live Here' project of the municipality of Amsterdam.