Hatred is a feeling of intense hostility. But it is not merely a feeling, not merely a sensation inside an individual mind or brain. If hatred stayed inside it would not be as dangerous as it is, because it would damage only the individual who experienced it. Things don’t work that way.
Hatred is a feeling of intense hostility. But it is not merely a feeling, not merely a sensation inside an individual mind or brain. If hatred stayed inside it would not be as dangerous as it is, because it would damage only the individual who experienced it. Things don’t work that way. Hatred emerges in attitudes, words, and actions that are destructive to lives and relationships. When individuals hate one another, the attitude is totalizing. When we dislike a person, we can allow that he has some good qualities. For example, we may dislike a man who dominates conversations but allow that he is well-intentioned and generous. Not so with hate. Were we to hate this person, we would allow no such qualifications. In politics, where groups contend for influence and power, hatred is a collective phenomenon, expressed and stimulated in multiple statements, attitudes, and actions. The totalizing aspect is still there. The hated ones are regarded as evil. And regrettably, most of us regard violence as natural and inevitable.
Many would allow that contemporary politics in the United States is a politics of hate. The rival Democrats and Republicans decry each other as evil and dangerous. According to Republicans, Democrats have allowed millions of illegal aliens into “our country;” these “illegals” are committing robberies, rapes and murders, and even eating the pets of Americans. Democrats warn that a Republican victory would be a threat to democracy, quite possibly the beginning of its end under the presidency of Trump, a convicted felon openly advocating the imprisonment of his opponents. In this context, the ‘politics of hate’ description seems warranted. But Canada? Do we currently have a politics of hate? Are we headed in that direction? Surely things are less grave here than in the United States. But one striking aspect is attitudes towards our Prime Minister, toward whom a high percentage of citizens have attitudes of intense dislike, if polls are to be believed. Resented for his good looks, privileged upbringing, smooth confidence and expensive holidays, Justin Trudeau is blamed for all problems – even those like increased prices, which are attributable to far-away developments like the war in Ukraine and shipping disruptions by Houthis operating out of Yemen. As Canadians, we tend to console ourselves about impending problems by comparing ourselves to Americans and feeling smug. This response can be self-deceptive (consider the case of health care), misleading and harmful. It is clear that harsh rhetoric and insults do seem to characterize our politics of late, and the phenomena are worth worrying about.
Negative aspects of a politics of hate are many and obvious. Harsh rhetoric increases animosity and inhibits dialogue between opponents who regards the others as evil enemies. Details are lost and agreed facts scarce as dialogue stops and abuse abounds. A rhetoric of insults and slogans leaves little room for sensible analysis and careful arguments. Calling Kamala Harris a Marxist contributes nothing to reflection on tax policy. Nor does the slogan ‘axe the tax’ provide insight or strategy concerning climate change. Solutions to problems small and large are unlikely to emerge from discourses of insult, exaggeration, and humiliation. As derogatory remarks become more common while reasoned argument and explanation are scarce, there is a sense in which the language of hatred is normalized. A decade of name-calling seems to have shifted norms. When the October debate between U.S. vice presidential candidates was civil, some commentators noted the fact approvingly. But others deemed the vice-presidential debate rather insipid, blaming one candidate for not hitting hard enough with his criticisms and the other for disguising his true nature so as to appear misleadingly normal. (I, for one, was relieved to see that civil discourse between election opponents is still possible.)
Social media facilitate the expression of nasty, even vicious comments and exchanges, with resulting threats and intimidation of persons participating in politics and some leaving to protect their physical security and mental health. Women are especially affected, with many women politicians reporting appalling threats of rape, murder, and even attacks against their children. Names of women who have left politics due to such harassment come readily to mind. Shannon Phillips (New Democrat, Alberta); Catherine McKenna, Pam Damoff, and Celina Caesar Chavannes (Liberal, federal in Canada); and internationally Jacinda Arden (New Zealand), Sanna Marin (Finland) and Nicola Sturgeon (Scotland).
Even in situations where problems need urgent solution, cooperation between rival groups and individuals will be difficult at best when violence is threatened, rhetoric is vicious and dialogue is scarce. Hatred brings an atmosphere of fear going beyond participants themselves to affect civil society more generally. That there are risks and dangers in a politics of hate is clear. The politics of hate is worse than frightening and unpleasant; it is counter-productive, dangerous, and destructive.
There are many questions one could raise about the politics of hate. My own interest lies in that of recovery. I’m convinced that a politics of hate is a bad thing and getting over it is highly desirable. Is recovery possible? How could it come about? If people are engaged in a politics of hate, how could they get over it?
During the Cold War (1945 – 1989, according to convention), the United States and the Soviet Union were enemies. It would be an exaggeration to say that during this whole period, their politics was a politics of hate because there were more and less intense variations in different phases. According to George Schultz, writing in 2009, at one point President Ronald Reagan, a science fiction fan, asked President Gorbachev whether he thought the two countries would help each other in the event of an invasion from outer space. Gorbachev replied that he thought they would. Any hatred that had characterized relations between the two countries would disappear if such a sudden catastrophe revealed a need to cooperate. The story suggests one way of recovering from a politics of hate: fight a common enemy. With this solution, initial hatreds are replaced by new ones. There is still politics and there is still hatred as a prominent aspect of it; it is just that the target has changed.
We might envisage the politics of hate ending due to changes in leadership. Perhaps new leaders emerge having experienced the fears and damages of such politics and seeking a change of ways. They could exemplify and encourage different norms, perhaps reaching valuable goals due to cooperation made possible by those shifts. Or perhaps a country characterized by polarizing hatred would be conquered and outsiders would take over, in a position to articulate and enforce new norms. In such a context, for a shift to really occur, re-education and persuasion would be necessary. Exerting dominance in a context where a party was defeated and vulnerable could make this possible: the norms and practices of hating could be made to disappear. One might cite post-war Germany and post-war Japan as examples.
In the late sixties and the seventies, American politics was characterized by intense polarization and considerable violence. The civil rights movement, largely nonviolent in character, nevertheless resulted in violent responses – bombings, shootings, and other attacks. There were riots in major cities. Nonviolent actions such as boycotts and sit-ins were key elements of Black activism. Although civil rights leader Martin Luther King preached nonviolence and ‘love your enemies’, it is no exaggeration to say that this period featured a politics of hate. King was threatened, attacked, and eventually killed. Yet somehow, the widespread violence of the late sixties and the 1970s diminished for several decades. How? Why?
We could posit that attitudes and practices simply shift over time, without any unitary agency being in charge. The possibility cannot be ruled out. But for this to happen, norms would have to shift. If we were to recover from a politics of hate, public name-calling would be recognized as rude and unacceptable. Stereotypes would be recognized as crude. Nuance and accuracy would be valued. Expertise would be acknowledged as relevant and valuable. Talk of elites in control in dark places would cease. Blaming without evidence would be recognized as self-indulgent and silly. Would technological changes be part of the shift? Control of the internet and social media? Or Big Tech? If so, how so? By whom? Somehow beneficial shifts could occur. But it seems unlikely that such changes would simply come about with no direction. To presume that recovery will simply come about in such a manner seems rather optimistic and I don’t think we should count on it. The many shifts needed seem unlikely to happen without agency and intention, and inspiring leadership cannot simply be assumed.
In this context, I find it hard to see any scenario as realistic; I find it hard to envisage how a politics of hatred could end. I am inclined to think that to develop new norms of discourse and relationships, considerable efforts are required. These would be deliberate efforts away from intimidation, harsh rhetoric, threats, and violence. At this point I turn my attention to the work and strategies of activists for nonviolence. Of special interest are the reflections and actions of Nonviolent Peaceforce International; using strategies developed and published by another group named Unarmed Civilian Protection. (Material here is taken from websites of these groups and from talks by nonviolence activist Madelyn McKay and her course material at Selkirk College in Castlegar, B.C.)
Nonviolent Peaceforce International is a global civilian protection agency whose goals and work are based on international humanitarian and human rights law. It works to protect people without using physical force; by simple human interventions intended to create and leverage relationships. The group envisages a worldwide culture of peace within which conflicts between and within countries and communities are managed non-violently. Its members engage in teaching, training, interventions, and advocacy. They take nonviolent local action that is local, nonpartisan and civilian to civilian.
A guiding distinction here is that between conflict and violence. Conflict, when people or groups have differing and seemingly incompatible goals, is inevitable in human life and relationships. Violence is one response to conflict. It is only one response and it is an undesirable response. Though conflicts are inevitable, violence in response to them is not.
It is relatively easy to appreciate this distinction in everyday contexts. Consider two men who want to buy the same house. Assuming that they do not wish to share ownership of the place, they are in conflict. They can engage in that conflict in various ways: through informal talks, mediation, negotiation, or legal process. Or undesirably – dangerously, counter-productively — they could resort to threats and physical violence. Intimidation, attacks or even murder. Clearly these options among the many available are deemed immoral and illegal.
The same point can be made concerning conflicts between nations: violent options are among many others and are not the best. Matters may be handled by negotiation and diplomacy, mediation, or reference to international tribunals and courts. Indeed, such nonviolent responses are the norm in many international contexts. It would be unthinkable, for instance, for Canada to attack Britain in a dispute about fishing in the North Atlantic.
Founded in 2002, Nonviolent Peaceforce International has consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Its methods are low key, low cost, neutral, and benign. The organization has worked to re-integrate child soldiers into societies, monitored ceasefires, and assisted in Rohinga refugee camps in Bangladesh. It is active in many countries: Mexico, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Myanmar, the Philippines, South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, and Ukraine.
And also, notably, the United States. There the group seeks to de-escalate the use of force and protect threatened persons such as gays, trans people, Jews, immigrants, and migrants. The 2024 election is a current focus. How to protect threatened and intimidated people? Not with a gun. Key tactics are accompaniment, the setting aside of safe space, rumour control, the establishing of relationships with key figures in local communities, and the close observation of local affairs. Contacts and dialogue build trust in local contexts and relationships are an important resource for preventing or de-escalating violence. These methods are those of unarmed civilian protection: protection of civilians by other civilians, without using weapons or physical force. Members have worked and are currently working to ensure safe elections and the safety of people who may be intimidated by threats and afraid of voting. They also try to counter hate narratives and work against repression and intimidation on college campuses. In efforts to overcome destructive divisiveness, they establish dialogue groups that will enable relationships between members of opposed groups. United States: 2024.
Unarmed Civilian Protection provides an accessible online manual explaining strategies to prevent or lessen violence, sustain peace agreements, and create safer spaces for peacebuilding. Strategies are bottom up, emphasizing the significance of local understanding and resources and envisaging special roles for women as peacemakers. Often, violence can be reduced without weapons. Accounts are given of protective presence, monitoring, building relationships and confidence, capacity enhancement, and advocacy. ‘Unarmed’ does not mean defenceless. In contexts where confrontations seem likely to arise, unarmed civilian protection advocates suggest simple interventions. One may seek to distract a person who is becoming angry. Ask: ‘Do you know what time it is?’ ‘Would you like to go for coffee?’ One can urge a bystander to take action regarding an element seen as a likely provocation. ‘I’m afraid some people may object to your bumper sticker. Could you move your car and help us out here?’
A pessimist might remind enthusiasts that only a few people share the vision of a culture of peace and consider the nature and success of nonviolent intervention strategies. ‘These people are such a minority. Are they all pacifists? What about just wars? World War II?’ Critics might urge realism, based on the prevalence of war in human history and our fascination with its stories and heroes. Surely, the pessimist might urge, it is more exciting to think about valiant military heroes and consider sophisticated weapons and battles than to consider Mennonites in the Peace Brigades accompanying the vulnerable through checkpoints. Look at the considerable shelf space given to ‘war’ in the history section of most bookstores. Some of this public fascination is due to selective stories and misleading narratives. Glory not misery. Dramatic physical struggle, not peace. Heroic soldiers, not men struggling with post-traumatic stress. Victory marches, not civilians with amputated limbs. There are aspects of distortion and false values here.
I submit that nonviolent actions are profoundly important, both in themselves and for the potential they reveal. A politics of hate and violence is counter-productive and dangerous. Violence emerging from hatred is not inevitable, nationally or internationally. Fundamental changes can happen and they sometimes have.
There really is such a thing as nonviolent force, based on people in relationships, having become accustomed to managing their conflicts without weapons and violence. From a politics of hatred, we need to recover. It makes sense to think that vision and dedicated agents can bring that about. So let’s pay attention to their discoveries and their advice. 