The Covid 19 pandemic and, above all, its consequences for society will occupy us for a long time to come. This is precisely why the social debate on how to deal with the crisis is highly relevant. The healthy and respectful dialogue and compromise that is customary in Switzerland seem to be suffering in the process. We have been observing this development for some time now and we are not alone in this. This is also shown by numerous articles and contributions, for example in well-known daily newspapers and publications.
On November 4, 2021, the Risk Dialogue Foundation, together with the Dialogue and Participation Unit, therefore organized an online seminar to address the ongoing polarization of our society. The focus was on approaches to solutions and ways out of polarization. After an introduction by Prof. Dr. em. Ueli Mäder and Dr. Cordula Reimann, a lively discussion arose with all participants. It became clear that many fundamental questions are still unanswered: How polarized are the debates already? What rifts exist between the groups that speak out and advocate for or against measures? Where do these differences come from and how do we deal with them?
We would like to give you the following theses, developed in the online seminar as. These should help to give the topic of possible polarization more differentiated visibility and to continue the discussion in the medium and long term:
The pandemic is not the sole cause of polarization, but a catalyst
Existing differences are strengthened by the current pandemic situation and the general concern of all people and groups. On the one hand, because of the polarized discussion, protective measures taken are only accepted by part of the population, and on the other hand, other groups feel that they are not being heard. It is therefore important to find out which divisions underlie this polarization and are additionally reinforced by the pandemic.
Acknowledge heterogeneity of opponents of measures or vaccination and try to understand the different motives.
Despite heated debates and finger-pointing from all camps, very little is known about the motivations behind the movement against vaccination or corresponding further measures. If – as we assume – very different motives are behind the resistance, it is essential to know them better. We need to understand the insecurities and fears of the people who feel betrayed by the measures in order to lay the foundation for a dialogue. An analysis of the actors is therefore central for further possibilities of action.
Creating spaces for dialogue
To counter the tendencies of polarization, a respectful exchange between people and groups with different opinions is needed. To support this exchange, dialog spaces must be created in which the fundamental differences in the context are addressed. However, commonalities in other matters should also be pointed out in a targeted manner. Only with a deeper understanding of the differences and motives can such dialog spaces be created. Dialogue should take place on a small as well as a large scale, and the setting is especially important. During the current voting culture, for example, the political debate is already highly charged and the willingness to compromise is low on both sides.
To overcome polarization, we also have to start with ourselves
Discussion of the issues, a better understanding of the opinions and groups involved, and dialogue between different camps are important elements. However, these take time and depend on a variety of external factors. The fastest change we can achieve is within ourselves. To do this, we may also have to admit our own fears and prejudices. If the pandemic does indeed serve as a catalyst for these fears and differences, we should strive all the harder to recognize and overcome them. To make this easier for our counterparts, we need, among other things, to de-escalate our own language – including in the media.
The Risk Dialogue Foundation will continue to work on these theses and engage in the topic. We look forward to inputs and cooperation in order to jointly contribute to a respectful and goal-oriented culture of dialog.