I got thinking recently, having read some interesting posts on Fanstory on a similar theme, about the concept of harmony. It feels like, in recent years, there's been a polarising of opinions. This may be due to the influence of social media, of information being more broadly available and influencers having greater access to people's minds, or perhaps just the way developed societies are evolving. Are we trained to see everything as a competition?


Polar Landscapes

In the USA, there's been the lingering uproar over Donald Trump's presidency, and here in the UK, the ongoing debate over Brexit. The air is filled with the opinions of those who are steadfastly on one side or the other, with barely a whisper of anyone seeing a broader picture, or just trying to get on with things. Must we either love or hate something, and revere one specific path to the exclusion of all others? Is that not the foundation of a road bearing the signpost 'Extremism - not far to go' in bold type? There's an inevitable result of this path, and that's division.


I'm a Victim Too

This polarising of opinion has coincided with another ever-present but usually dormant human trait - the victim fetish. It's like the worst possible slant on a 'Me Too' theme, but without the exposure of truth, and we all have it somewhere within us. A victim fetish is the tendency of a group or individual to feel as though they've been wronged in a way that's not acknowledged. It happens when another group is being specifically exposed in the mainstream media. For example, when Black Lives Matter marches happen, white people say 'my life matters too' and when trans rights are spoken about, some campaigners for women's rights feel their own message is diluted. When Muslim groups speak of being targeted, Christian and Sikh groups speak up about their own experiences of being victims. The result? Division.


I'm Fashionably Right, You Know

The point is, fashion isn't just for clothing trends - it reaches to every facet of human thought and emotion. For every cause having its moment in the sun, another thousand are being ignored. We even come up with terms to justify ourselves when we pillory people or groups. My favourite? Social Justice - is that not just a pretty way of saying 'mob rule' but in a Facebook-friendly format? We can't even agree on court cases - historically OJ Simpson, recently Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard - where public opinion, based entirely on curated perceptions, is so strong that the actual legal verdict becomes almost meaningless, and even a judgement of the court doesn't change anybody's opinion of what's true. Oh look, some more division!


Everyone Secretly Agrees With Me - I'm Just the Only One Willing to Say It

I see and hear this quite commonly, but I don't think I even need to say much - just think about it for a moment, and admire the narcissism!


The Road to Harmony

Most would agree that a harmonious society is not only desirable but a worthy goal. If people are content and feel not just valued but listened-to, they will be more productive and likely to see each new day more as an opportunity than a slog. Wouldn't we all love to greet each dusk feeling fulfilled rather than stressed about what someone else said or a situation we have no control over? The real question, though, is whether it's an unattainable utopia or something genuinely achievable. To my mind, there are two ways harmony works in society.


1. It's My Way or the Highway

Yes, I've written a provocative heading, but I want to get the synapses firing. If everyone agreed with me, there would be no division, no war. Wouldn't that be nice! We wouldn't need political parties, because the government would simply be there to administrate daily activities. We'd only need one TV channel because everyone would enjoy the same things. Okay, that was a little sarcastic, but this approach could work if people were willing to be reasonable.

All that's needed is a consensus that we will accept a single ideal. We can have one religion that all will follow, one political ethos - it can be a mix of policies seen as traditionally left or right, if necessary - and a set of laws that hopefully won't be necessary. Everybody is happy because life is working according to what they believe.

People will all work for the greater societal good - not for personal gain, because there will be no need for great wealth. The government can provide public services and distribute resources as needed. Inflation will stay in check because, without vying market forces or the uncontrolled variation in supply and demand, prices will not need to change. The country will become a well-oiled machine where everyone contributes to and benefits from the body politic.

Oh, hang on ... That's Communism.

Instead, we'll ensure the best people are given eminence. The best minds will be used for science, the best physical traits for sports and the military. The government will ensure everybody has what they need, in exchange for hard work and dedication to the state. The most loyal will have access to the greatest benefits. Combined with selective promotion of the best traits, we can ensure, over time, all citizens will display the sharpest intellect and the finest blue eyes and blond hair.

Bum on a stick, I've found the road to Fascism.


2. We're All in This Together

Or, I suppose we could call this a modern Democracy. People are free to think and believe whatever they please, and conduct themselves in the way they consider appropriate - within reason. Rather than all agree to one belief system, we accept that none of them are universal. Instead of being fed a specified diet of every type of consumable, we are offered choice. As such, some things and people will succeed ahead of others because they are able to attract the popular backing to do so.

We agree to be bound by a common set of laws so society may function without fear. We understand some of these laws may encroach on our freedoms, but we accept them in the name of security. We have the right to speak up if we think any of the agreed rules are inappropriate or misguided, but everyone else may speak up too.

By compromising, we ensure no group or individual is excluded from society and everyone has the chance to succeed by being themselves.

Or, by compromising, do we simply ensure that nobody is happy, because no doctrine or ethos is being shared by all?

Winston Churchill famously said that Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others. It's hard to disagree with that. Perhaps, by everyone accepting that nobody knows what's right all the time, we can find a place where we can have as much contentment as possible without removing it from anyone else. And look - I've found my way right back to where we started.


Is Division in Our DNA?

I wonder if our issues stem not from a place where we're not getting what we want, but one where we don't actually know what we want. The generally accepted morals a society lives by change inevitably over time as the world develops. National and imperial pride are now seen as historic evils. Protecting another country with one's own military might is now seen as meddling. With the advent of globalised information sharing, the old adage that there are two sides to every story is hardly sufficient - there are dozens, and every one will have a passionate group of earnest believers telling us it's the only viewpoint.

Where once we fought world wars, and people had no choice but to pitch in or risk their country being defeated, now we battle over which of two people we've never met and don't know might be lying for the benefit of an Instagram following.

There's an apt episode of satirical cartoon South Park where religion gets banned so everyone can bask in the harmony of Atheism. Fast forward to the future, and factions are warring over exactly which aspects of atheism are correct, and whose interpretation of not believing in anything is the right one.

What am I saying? I'm saying we seem to thrive on conflict. We need things to rail against and get behind. In lieu of world-changing events we can interface with directly, we find a corner to fight in - whether it be our beliefs, political opinions, friends or just current affairs that strike us as objectionable. Whatever else may be true, we want the right to fight for what feels true to us.

Perhaps the best we can ask for is the freedom to do that.