There would be plenty of ideas and opinions if an alien
First Contact event does occur someday. Humans would argue about how we should
respond and how we should move forward. Debate can be a good thing if it brings
important issues to the forefront of discussion, but would we actually listen
to each other? I’ve discussed polarization previously in this blog. In this
context, it’s the movement of political opinion groups to opposite sides of a spectrum,
setting up vehement disagreements and conflict. One could argue that First
Contact would not be a political event, but rather a scientific development. It
may start that way, but if there is high information communication occurring,
or likely to occur, between humans and extraterrestrials, politics would
quickly come into play. There would be much at stake. Governments, institutions
and corporations would all be interested in a piece of the alien information
pie. Issues of international relations, human leadership, and human response
would put governments, and the United Nations, on the front lines of First
Contact debate. It would be a political problem because governments are fueled
by politics, especially in democracies. And political polarization quickly leads to
social polarization, a much more entrenched problem, as it can divide people at
even the most personal level. The polarization of American politics is an oft-discussed topic, however, it does seem to be a global phenomenon. There are
current examples of political polarization in Britain, France and Turkey, to
name just a few. The United Nations issued a report last year citing some of
the reasons for polarization as including income inequality, economic problems,
the competition for resources, and environmental challenges.
Polarization is harmful when it creates gridlock and
inaction. The big question in the wake of First Contact would be how to avoid
polarization in order to build consensus and get things done. I think that active
listening and well-considered messaging will be important. Listening sounds
like an obvious solution to polarization. If we listen to other viewpoints, and
consider those ideas, we are more likely to broaden our perspective. However,
if all of the messaging is inflamed and politically charged, listening will be
difficult.
Active listening and well-considered messaging are not
new ideas. They are common interpersonal communication techniques. Here is what
the US State Department suggests for active listening:
1. Seek to understand before you seek to be understood.
2. Be non-judgmental
3. Give your undivided attention to the speaker
4. Use silence effectively
Well-considered messaging is achieved when the sender takes
into account the audience, employs empathy to understand that audience, and
crafts the message using words and phrases that engage the audience. Simply
put: avoid the rhetoric and get to the heart of what people care about.
We would hope that our leaders would employ active
listening and well-considered messaging on a regular basis. However, we know
that is not the case. Leaders sometimes make a conscious effort to avoid active
listening and well-considered messaging. The reason: they seek to control
people by creating wedges between groups. Nasty rhetoric is a way to fire-up
your base and create a delineation with your opponents. There will be plenty of
people using inflamed rhetoric in the wake of First Contact. They will be
seeking power and advantage by dividing the public along lines that favor their
interests. The media and the public will need to be on the watch for such
behavior and call it out when it happens.
The political and social climate in many nations is
currently quite negative. Such thinking could easily turn the debate over First
Contact response into a vociferous free for all. If First Contact does occur
someday, we will all need to work hard to keep the discourse positive and
actions productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment