Dr Altınay began by invoking the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 as an “experiment” in reconnection—one whose promise has since been undermined by our underestimation of three vital ingredients. First, he argued, we have neglected camaraderie: the shared sense of belonging that flourished in thriving democracies. He noted that, in the United States, the proportion of congressional districts represented by the same party rose from 26 percent in 1979 to over 60 percent today, a measure of partisan Balkanisation fuelled in part by social media and manipulative design. In the United Kingdom, local communities have similarly fragmented into “anywhere people” whose weak ties to neighbours foster exaggerated perceptions of ideological opponents. Drawing on experiments at the University of Chicago, he suggested that many of our political dislikes stem not from deep conviction but from too little genuine interaction with those who differ from us.Second, Altınay lamented our dismissal of goodwill and trust as “soft” virtues. He reminded the audience that handshakes and greetings—whether “namaste” in South Asia or “salaam” in the Middle East—are universal signals of amenity and harmlessness. Citing Jared Diamond’s work on tribal societies, he noted that early humans assumed strangers to be enemies unless proven otherwise; by contrast, modern societies flourish when citizens assume benign intent. Evolutionary social science, he argued, confirms that cooperation is not irrational but foundational: people will incur personal costs to defend fairness and solidarity.
Third, Altınay warned, we have resisted recognising our interdependence. For decades, economists have modelled homo economicus as a self-interested maximiser—but real-world behaviour shows widespread willingness to sacrifice for collective well-being. He urged us to revive the Platonic genealogy of “duties and responsibilities” that underpinned early NATO courses, replacing zero-sum transactionalism with a commitment to mutual flourishing. Finally, he deplored how we have “pasteurised” our language—prioritising polished public speaking while neglecting the art of listening “with the heart’s ear.” He called for pedagogies in generous listening and “wholesome conversation” to complement existing rhetoric training.
In his response, Professor Paul Betts offered historical reflections on conversation as the bedrock of civil society. He traced the power of dialogue from Enlightenment coffeehouses—“spaces of camaraderie,” he quipped—to eighteenth-century epistolary networks that advanced knowledge and mutual respect across borders. Betts reminded listeners that post-war institutions like UNESCO sought to maintain intercontinental conversations even amid superpower isolation, and that generational solidarity fuelled anti-colonial movements through shared dialogue. He cautioned that today’s digital media often amplify division, yet he noted the pandemic’s online forums demonstrated how necessity can spur meaningful exchange. Betts concluded by asking whether education—or some complementary engine—can rekindle a sense of communal duty and encourage citizens to engage strangers with empathy.
Altınay’s rejoinder emphasised that responsibility and freedom are inseparable: as Gandhi taught, “free because responsible, responsible because free.” He agreed that history is essential to our self-understanding but insisted that knowing past dialogues is not enough; we must actively practise conversation in the present.
During the Q&A, audience members asked whether transaction-driven politics can accommodate generous listening. Altınay replied that transactionalism is not inherently harmful, but becomes dangerous when it crowds out all other modes of relating. He contrasted gift-giving—which signals trust and builds relationships—with deals that treat human interaction solely as cost-benefit calculations. On the challenge of polarisation, he urged that equitable listening and personal engagement must complement systemic reforms, arguing that speed of change often outpaces our patience for thoughtful dialogue. When asked about education’s role, Timothy Garton Ash proposed mandatory digital-literacy courses from primary school onward, teaching children to distinguish fact from falsehood and to “agree to disagree” respectfully. Betts added that empathy must be nurtured as the foundation for mutual understanding and a renewed sense of community.
In closing, the panel affirmed that conversation—far from a quaint relic—is democracy’s most vital innovation. At a moment when “bright lights” like Trump’s rhetoric threaten to blind us to subtle progress and early warning signs, the practice of generous listening and honest dialogue may yet prove our greatest resource. As Altınay urged, each of us can reclaim conversation as a daily act of trust, an everyday innovation that holds the promise of collective renewal.
by Yangyang Zhao (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment