Hate-proofing: a how-to guide

Francis Storr via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Remember back in 2012? The world economy was officially declared "recovered" from the Great Recession. The Arab Spring signalled the end of autocracies in the Middle East. The U.S. government was poised to roll out universal health care and legalize gay marriage for Americans. And Upworthy - a website solely in the business of good news - was on its way to becoming the fastest growing media site of all time.

"Despite being the most educated population in history, most of us lack practical conversation skills to communicate with people of opposite views." - David Kahane

The optimism of five years ago now seems almost quaint. Today, we're faced with the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War, increasing anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes, the international rise of "alt-right" extremism, resistance to gender minority rights and the bullying of women in politics. Facebook links that once promised you "The One Cool Trick That'll Win Any Stranger's Heart" have given way to toxic fake news, reinforcing our worst biases without regard for real-world consequences. The world - both online and off - has become a highly polarized, hyperbolic place swirling with general hatred.

University of Alberta political science professor David Kahane warns that we shouldn't take the stability of democratic norms and institutions for granted. "When politicians stoke fear of already stigmatized groups and leverage political polarization, they mobilize social forces that may not be easy to contain. While we're not in the 1930s, the rise of fascism in that period reminds us that democratic politics can turn fast," says Kahane. "We might look back and think there was a one-year period where mobilization could have changed everything, and then 'X' happened."

So how can we protect society from succumbing to the spread of hate, scapegoating and tribalism?

It begins with self-awareness and hinges on conversation.

Admit your privileges and biases

"People rarely think negatively of a group they belong to," says UAlberta gender studies professor Amy Kaler. And difficult as it is to convince ourselves of our own biases, it's even harder to grasp our privileges, not in the least because they contradict the "self-made man" myth with which the Western Hemisphere was colonized (or the more insidious myth of Canada as a post-racial utopia). "It is difficult to untangle that self-narrative," says Kaler. But untangle it we must.

"Without dismissing your unique struggles and resilience, it's important to acknowledge that you didn't fall from the sky," she says. Reflect on how, for instance, the colour of your skin, your gender or level of education might contribute to your everyday accomplishments - or have the opposite effect for someone of a different race, gender or socio-economic background. And don't automatically get defensive if someone mentions your privileges; consider just how fortunate you might be.

Rather than focusing on your differences, reflect on the commonalities you share with other people, regardless of race, nationality or gender identity. We all wish for freedom from danger, peace of mind and body, and ease of living. These universal values eclipse any cultural, religious or lifestyle differences that feed our senses of moral superiority.

Recognize the consequences

According to UAlberta political scientist Malinda Smith, '93 PhD, Canada's hate speech laws, initially instated to combat anti-Semitism, have eroded over the last several years under the guise of free speech. "[Policymakers] didn't think about the broader implications," says Smith, co-author of the forthcoming book The Equity Myth.

Repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2013 made space for hate groups to recruit legally online and protected proliferators of discriminatory content, such as the anti-Muslim articles regularly published by Breitbart and Rebel Media. But what many people fail to acknowledge is that hyperbole and fear-baiting inspires real hurt, suffering and violence. (Some wonder what role this kind of rhetoric might have played in the Quebec City mosque shooting in January, for example.)

Words matter, and though the law gives us the right to spout venomous rhetoric, decency should weigh equally as heavily before we punch the keys for our latest "anti-" diatribe. And should we get called out for it - lose friends or, perhaps, a six-figure book deal - that's also free speech, not mere "political correctness."

Work on your conversation skills

"Despite being the most educated population in history, most of us lack practical conversation skills to communicate with people of opposite views," says Kahane. Too often we try to persuade them with stats and facts - searching, copying and pasting links in online comment sections like we're in a URL arms race. Kahane, as a former project director of Alberta Climate Dialogue, knows the futility of this approach. "For decades, environmentalists thought, 'If we just get the facts across to people, they will see how important it is to deal with global warming.' But defeat after defeat, it was obvious that people don't change because they hear new information."

So what's a more effective approach? Human stories that appeal to a person's values, of good health, fairness, ingenuity, family or community. Some experts suggest that developing perspective helps. Try to see the world through the opposition's eyes - an anti-vaxxer, for instance, who struggles with the challenges of raising an autistic child - and respond with an anecdote of a family member who struggled with polio, or a recent breakthrough in autism research that celebrates scientists instead of demonizing them.

Talk to people

Most importantly, talk to people in person if possible. "We need to enable people to talk to others on buses and elevators and at the dinner table," says Smith.

Social media bickering often makes us more threatening than we intend, and it more often than not makes the people we're arguing with double down on their beliefs rather than admit there are other valid perspectives. "Mocking their point of view can be an adrenalin rush because everyone wants to feel righteous. But it doesn't accomplish anything," says Kaler. "The 140-character limit [of Twitter] means that all you can really do is disagree vehemently, you can't have an actual discussion."

"The stronger remedy," echoes Kahane, "is rekindling face-to-face relationships - being out there in the political and civic world in ways that do bring us into contact with people with more diverse views. Skillful action is built on this kind of conversation."

David Kahane is a professor in the Department of Political Science. His broader research deals with theories and practices of democratic dialogue and deliberation.

Amy Kaler is a professor of sociology. She has a PhD in Sociology and Feminist Studies from the University of Minnesota, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in Population Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Malinda S. Smith is a professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts. Her research and engaged scholarship draws on critical theoretical perspectives in political science and the humanities to explore questions of equity, social justice, decolonization and social change.

Comments Policy

We at Thought Box welcome your comments. Robust debate and criticism are encouraged, provided it is respectful. We reserve the right to reject comments, images or links that attack ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation; that include offensive language, threats, spam; are fraudulent or defamatory; infringe on copyright or trademarks; and that just generally aren't very nice. Discussion is monitored and violation of these guidelines will result in comments being disabled.