A polarised society

Over the years, I’ve noticed a change in how we interact with each other, how the media and politicians ‘spin’ the interaction, and also in the very institutions that shape our experiences – schools and universities. The change I’ve been trying to understand is focused on how we engage with differences. This change has, I think, directly influenced the landscape of higher education, particularly where universities were traditionally places for open, diverse opinions and intellectual exchange.

• Disclaimer: AI was used to help me structure my ideas and write this post.

“I believe this, you believe that”

Historically, differences in belief, whether ideological, political, or cultural, were seen as part of the fabric of human society. We used to respect and engage in differences – “I believe this, you believe that” captured the essence of these differences. People might have disagreed on many topics, from the role of government to what constitutes the ideal form of education, but the focus was generally on mutual respect. There was, in theory, an acknowledgement that we all have different experiences and, therefore, different views. Universities were designed as spaces where students and staff could engage with those differences, question assumptions, and explore new ideas. We could explore ourselves and our thoughts.

In these environments, healthy debate was the cornerstone of intellectual progress. It was about exploring your beliefs, listening to others (with an open mind), and understanding that viewpoints can be different from your own. Universities were regarded as places of diversity, where diversity of thought was welcomed and celebrated. This intellectual diversity provided safe spaces for rigorous academic debate, fostering critical thinking and, ultimately, greater social cohesion.

“I believe this, you don’t”

However, the harmony of respectful disagreement began to fray as societal discourse began shifting towards a more polarised dynamic. I believe this set in as more and more people found a voice on the internet and realised they didn’t have to listen as much as they used to. The phrase “I believe this, you don’t” illustrates the growing sense of division in which differing opinions were no longer merely seen as “other” perspectives but as direct opposition. Here, disagreement becomes a personal challenge to your own identity and worldview.

This transition from dialogue to division has been fueled by several factors, including the rise of social media, the increasing dominance of echo chambers, and a general breakdown of trust in traditional institutions (including politics). People started to gravitate towards communities and platforms that reinforced their beliefs, making it easier to dismiss conflicting opinions as not just wrong, but as morally or intellectually inferior.

In universities, this change posed a significant challenge. Students and staff found themselves less willing to engage in meaningful dialogue with those whose views didn’t align with their own. Academic spaces that were previously safe became spaces of tension, where debates could quickly become combative rather than collaborative. The pressure to conform to specific ideologies or frameworks grew, with institutions being forced to navigate the complexities of managing dissent and encouraging diverse perspectives without causing harm or discomfort.

“I believe this, you don’t, so you must be against me”

This is where I see us today. We find ourselves more charged and more contentious, where disagreement has changed into suspicion and even outright hostility. “I believe this, you don’t, so you must be against me” has become a defining feature of contemporary discourse. Here, opinions are no longer diverse but are seen as inherently oppositional.

This shift is evident in many areas of society, from political polarisation to the debates around identity and social justice. In the context of higher education, it has become increasingly difficult to have meaningful, respectful conversations about contentious issues. Disagreement is interpreted as a personal attack, and differences are framed as betrayals of an individual’s fundamental values. The idea that someone might simply hold a different perspective, informed by their own experiences and background, has largely been replaced by the belief that those who disagree are engaged in an active effort to undermine or oppose what you stand for.

Universities, traditionally viewed as spaces for free thought, are now navigating a landscape where the very notion of free speech is being questioned. In some cases, universities are accused of failing to protect students from ideas they find offensive, while in others, staff and students alike are under increasing pressure to follow the ideological line. The result is a higher education system that sometimes struggles to balance its historic role as a space for the free exchange of ideas with the contemporary demands for inclusivity and emotional safety.

Moving forward

As we look to the future of higher education in the UK, it is essential to acknowledge that these shifts in societal discourse are not easily reversed. However, this doesn’t mean that universities must become battlegrounds of ideological warfare or intellectual conformity. Instead, universities need to play a vital role in fostering a more constructive and inclusive environment for dialogue.

1. Promoting critical thinking: Universities must commit to their responsibilities to nurture critical thinking and intellectual resilience. Students should be encouraged not just to defend their views but to engage with those they disagree with in a way that challenges and refines their thinking. This doesn’t mean tolerating hate speech or discrimination but rather ensuring that students are equipped with the skills to navigate complex, often uncomfortable conversations.
2. Encouraging empathy: In the era of “you must be against me,” it’s crucial to remind ourselves that people’s beliefs are often shaped by deeply personal experiences. Universities can play a role in encouraging empathy and understanding, fostering an environment where differences are acknowledged, respected, and discussed constructively.
3. Redefining safe spaces: The concept of a “safe space” has become controversial in recent years, often interpreted as a place where no ideas should be allowed to challenge existing beliefs. However, education must redefine safe spaces to mean environments where students are safe to express their ideas, engage with different perspectives, and grow intellectually. This requires balancing emotional safety with the intellectual rigour that universities have always upheld.
4. The importance of dialogue: In a world increasingly defined by division, the ability to engage in genuine dialogue is more important than ever. Education must remain a space where diverse ideas can coexist and where individuals can learn not just from what they agree with but also from what they disagree with. Encouraging dialogue, rather than division, is essential for fostering a healthier, more cohesive society.

The shift from “I believe this, you believe that” to “I believe this, you don’t, so you must be against me” reflects the broader changes in society today. While this evolution has challenged the traditional role of education, it also provides an opportunity for universities to reaffirm their commitment to intellectual rigour, empathy, and dialogue. In doing so, they can play a key role in healing the rifts that divide society and ensuring that future generations are equipped to navigate a world full of complexity, disagreement, and possibility.

Photo by Joshua Forbes on Unsplash