Hope

Trump is just the latest and most frightening manifestation of a growing trend. Everywhere we look, narrow, tribalistic movements are growing in power – seeking to build walls and to assert the preeminence of particular moralities. Brexit; separatist movements among Catalans, Scots, Basques, Croats, Bosnians, Walloons - to stay only within Europe; the spread of, anti-immigrant fervor in Europe and the US; and fundamentalist rejections of the whole modern enterprise, including not only the violence of Muslim extremists but also the ideologies of many Christian and Hindu groups – these appear to be signs of a fundamental breakdown in trust and a fragmenting of community.

Some people say that trust is easy to destroy and hard to build; some say it is necessarily undermined by high diversity. Such interpretations lead to deep pessimism. They suggest that we are in for a long winter of mutual suspicion, an accelerating spiral in which everyone withdraws into homogeneous groups and fighting for position.

But the history of trust suggest that this view leaves out at least half the story. This moment is extremely unusual, perhaps unique, in the power of an inclusive counter-movement of people who actively embrace diversity, who believe deeply not only that other people should be tolerated but that they bring something positive – that we can learn from them, develop ourselves, improve the world by actively working to understand others outside our tribe. This basic sensibility has often appeared in the past among small cultural elites of artists and philosophers, but today it has spread quite widely through the general population. The age-old move to exclude is encountering determined resistance.

A few recent reminders:

• After the killing of a Catholic priest near Rouen, Muslims across France and Italy flocked to Catholic masses in a show of solidarity, and were widely welcomed. The leader of Italy's Union of Islamic communities called on his people to "take this historic moment to transform tragedy into a moment of dialogue."
• On the day after the shooting of police officers in Dallas, “Black Lives Matter” marchers confronted a largely White “All Lives Matter” counter-demonstration. There were fears of violence. Then the leaders crossed to the middle of the street to meet; and soon the two groups came together to physically embrace each other. They said, and enacted, “This has to stop. No more walls.”
• While politicians across Europe are paralyzed by conflicts over immigration, a wide network of civil society groups is working actively to accept and integrate those fleeing their homelands. In formal and informal associations, they are building refugee centers, finding homes, developing educational systems, conducting dialogues about their needs and the problems of inclusion.
• In the last decade there has been a sudden shift in a centuries-long battle over the acceptance of gays. Among young people in particular, but quite widely across the population, there has been a dramatic rise in willingness to recognize gay relationships. This has been driven by dramatic movement in public opinion, which has rapidly grown much more tolerant of diverse sexual orientations.

These events, and many others,  are indicators of a deep shift in sensibility developing over the last century or more – a sensibility of “No more walls”, of active embrace of diversity. My own research indicates that in the U.S. about 40% of the population shares this sensibility pretty clearly, while fewer – around 30% – reject it. So there is a strong base for the battle against Trumpism, and LePenism, and Brexitism.

This is a historic change. Since the 17th century we have tried to avoid conflict by  respecting boundaries, tolerating others as long as they don't invade our space.  That is what is brought into question now: the density of relations and ease of interaction have increased so dramatically that the boundaries are always porous. Other groups knock on our doors demanding respect, not just tolerance. We need their cooperation to solve urgent social problems.  Their religion, food, music, art, pictures of their children and cats jostle for our attention.

Those who react by trying to close down – the 30% – can do so only through extreme repression, and at the cost of giving up the richness of a diverse world. They do have the advantage, however, of a strong and unified ideology, referring to clear images of the past rather than hazy images of imagined futures.

The inclusive sensibility lacks such a clear political program or voice. Neither liberalism nor conservatism captures it. The young, who are most open in general to the rapid global exchanges of the internet, have low engagement with traditional national politics, which they see as beside the point. The more politically active of them are working in voluntary associations, from local organic coops to global NGOs.

The challenge now is: How can we develop a politics of inclusion? Its practices are half-formed, just taking shape. They include an explosion of civic organizations aimed at improving relations in local communities, raising consciousness of interdependence, reaching out and understanding others. They have started building a practical foundation for building on the genuine advances of the past century, and permanently overcoming the age-old attraction of tribalism.