Hamlet would have been Shakespeare’s shortest play if it’s eponymous character could make up his mind. Most of the play centres around his indecisiveness and inability to commit: does he believe the ghost? Will he be eternally damned if he does? These are undeniably important questions, ones that Hamlet knew deserved deep consideration and time before coming to a decision. Knowing that one’s decisions and opinions could influence both their own life and the lives of others is nothing short of noble – understanding the effect of words is, after all, integral to the continuation of humanity. Fast-forward from Elizabethan England to 2019, however, and it seems as if this skill has been lost in translation. Social media use is at an all-time high and thousands of people seem to get a kick out of posting their opinions from behind a façade of anonymity (an iPhone screen). These opinions, incomplete and misguided at best, are formed out of snap judgements. They are 280 words of opinion formed from having read the headline to one article, or from watching the news for five minutes. They are not well thought out, they are nowhere near as coherent as an opinion should be (whether it be about Brexit or the Love Island winners), and they are the symptom of our perpetual need to insert ourselves into every narrative possible.
These opinions that we see are often those that are extreme, thus creating a dialect between two or more people that argue from either side of the extreme. This binary approach to discussion and opinion, the simple you’re wrong/I’m right construct, leaves little room for movement or consideration of the nuances of the topic being discussed. It seems as if we fear the grey in the middle, that we seek out conversations that are clearly two sided because the unknown middle is a space to be feared. Whoever stands undecided in the middle is weak, right? Well, perhaps not. After all, the binary arguments that we see so frequently acted out on social media rarely come to a conclusive end, they continue monotonously jumping from side to side, resulting in insults being thrown until one member goes offline, or simply becomes disinterested.
This approach to discussion, which so often leads to arguments, is broadcast across the media on tv and radio, promoting the concept of pitting two alternative views against each other not to discuss and understand the other viewpoint, but to shout, throw insults, and try to win through being the meanest contestant. There is no better example of this than the existence of Piers Morgan. Morgan exists in the privileged white male universe that tells him he is always right, that all he needs to do to prove that he is right is talk louder than anyone else in the room. This, clearly, is not how normal conversations work. But, in a climate overrun with reality TV shows (and politicians that are so bad at their job it seems as if they, too, are part of a reality show joke), the way Morgan treats his guests makes for good TV. This however is problematic, not just because of the misguided anger that his guests endure (do we all remember how he reacted to the vegan sausage roll?) it presents both sides of the argument as equally valid. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem if the argument was simply ‘Marmite is/isn’t the best thing in the world’ but Morgan doesn’t talk about such vain topics. He belittles non-binary people and their request for people to use ‘they/them’ pronouns, he slut shames, uses the term ‘feminazi’ in earnest and proudly states that we should support ‘All lives matter’ instead of ‘black lives matter’ (spoiler, we shouldn’t). By giving Piers Morgan a public platform, the media are suggesting that all points of view, whether they be Islamophobic or in denial about climate change, are legitimate opinions that are worthy of airtime.
Not only does this black and white approach to conversation legitimise often harmful and insulting views, it ignores the nuanced, grey area between the two binaries. When often those involved in these heated discussions refuse to understand the opposing point of view, it seems utterly futile to ask of them to also understand the middle, the point at which both sides seemingly join in a messy union. This middle point, however, is the most human. It is where binaries join to be disorderly and confused; they aren’t clear and easily placed in a box, they are fluid and are rooted in a deep understanding of the messiness of humanity. Here, you don’t think of someone purely as one thing or the other, you understand that they are complex beings, simultaneously capable of wrongdoing and willingness to pick up their mess in order to be forgiven.
This person, capable of both wrong and right, is in all of us. So why don’t we consider all aspects of an argument before running in, guns blazing? No productive conversation ever started this way, and it never will. Instead, sitting on the fence for a while seems like the most productive thing one can do when faced with adversity. Giving yourself time to collect your thoughts and understand your emotions is not a sign of weakness, it shows that you understand the power of your words. The fence, located firmly in the centre of the grey area, is not a place to be feared, but one that we should all welcome with open arms. It is a place to contemplate, to be safe in asking whether things are to be, or not.
Comments