Student debate in the "culture games": Reconciliation, trust and a 2023 restart
How can students build a thriving and generous intellectual culture in this polarised climate? James Forsdyke says we won't do it without a new-found respect for free speech
A common characteristic of political ideology is the tendency to ignore individual experiences. Ideological dogma often reduces us to simplistic beings, easily squeezed into a particular box when it’s cognitively convenient. When we don’t want to think, we generalise and hope that our assumptions hold for the most part. When those assumptions are threatened, we can either deny that a problem exists and refuse to hear of it, or we can adapt our perceptions and force ourselves to stop being intellectually lazy. And as students in this current climate, we need much more of the latter. What follows is my attempt to show how students can achieve this and escape such dogma.
Consider the following scenario — it may seem rather irrelevant but hear me out. It could just hold the answer to how we, as students, can play our part in improving civic culture and intellectual discourse.
Two suspects are taken into custody. They are taken into separate questioning rooms and are each accused of taking part in a crime. In an unusual deal, both are told that the following options are available to them: If one denies any involvement in the alleged crime, and the other admits fault, the former walks free, and the other gets eight years in prison. If both admit fault, they both are sentenced to two years each. If both refuse to cooperate with the investigation, they both receive ten years.
The obvious ideal outcome to the prisoner’s dilemma is for both to take two years, and maximise “utility”. The inevitable outcome, driven by cowardice and mistrust on the part of both, is that each individual will hope to get away with it, deny responsibility and subsequently receive ten-year sentences.
This outcome is known as the “Nash equilibrium”. It’s the unfortunate and suboptimal result of rational but flawed self-interest. This idea from the field of study known as “game theory” has been applied across a great many disciplines, most notably economics. It is used in a variety of circumstances to shed light on rational behaviour, and its consequences. I think it sheds some light on the situation we students find ourselves in with regard to the “culture wars”, which grew out of universities and has turned student against student. “War” may not quite be accurate though, these are more like culture “games”.
At the moment, on both sides of these games, there are those who refuse to trust or engage with anyone who doesn’t share their exact opinions. As a result, we see a stalemate. Neither side adapts its views based on new experiences because of a lack of willingness to communicate. Neither side trusts the other, and both want to impose their ideals upon society. Both defect and suffer the consequences, namely ignorance of the other’s view, and an ever-continuing state of conflict and political polarisation. Continuing with the metaphor, both sides receive ten years in ideological jail, rather than working together to reduce their sentences and bring them closer to intellectual freedom.
When, on the very rare occasion we see individuals from different perspectives feeling confident enough to talk to each other, particularly publicly, it isn’t encouraged or celebrated enough. It’s incredible to see such people come together to discuss political issues in a respectful way, and we must never underestimate that. Think Jess Phillips’s and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s polite discussions, the friendship between Michael Portillo and Diane Abbott, or between Kevin Maguire and Andrew Pierce. Not students, but we must look somewhere.
Each time this happens, we must remember that against the odds, both sides have actively chosen to cooperate and trust one another. It would have been far easier for both parties to stay sequestered in their own political in-group, but to do so would be to remain in ignorant equilibrium. If people refuse to bring their argument in good faith we see unrepresentative viral clips and petty rows over apparent ‘gotcha’ moments. It may benefit each to portray the other in a negative light in the short term, but it doesn’t enhance our understanding of anything.
It isn’t self-evident that this sort of smear campaigning is done solely from cruelty or immorality of individuals either, it may just come down to a lack of trust that the other party won’t engage in this sort of behaviour first. It’s seen as safer to engage in a preemptive strike before one’s own reputation is damaged. If however, both were to trust each other to engage properly, we all learn something, reformulate our views, and hopefully shift our politics to a more holistic and moderate position.
Distrust is the real enemy here. It’s what brings about the authoritarian impulses which try to dictate what individuals can or can’t say, who or what they should support, and it’s what encourages the making of false defamatory claims, resulting in the all-too-common and, at this point, extremely dull “cancel culture”.
On the other extreme, it’s the authoritarian impulse telling others who they can or can’t be, how people should or shouldn’t dress, and how a person may or may not identify. It’s important to remember that these debates centre around real people, and the ways in which these people choose to live, speak, or hold faith in various beliefs. Instead of arguing over social media, we should offer our help and support to people on both sides who are being caught up in this. The people who are being threatened over their views, and the people feeling denied of their identity have more in common than has previously ever been discussed.
The stalemate and intellectual stagnation of this culture game does no good. The conflict is fuelled by a history of joint aversion to compromise. It requires a joint effort to put this history behind us, and move forward in a cooperative manner. A Buddhist saying springs to mind here, that holding onto anger is like grasping hot coals, intending to throw them at someone else. We, as students, need a restart. No more vitriol, it doesn’t help anyone.
Game theory analysis shows us what happens when we act in “rational self-interest”, but no man is an island. If we rid ourselves of the confines of in-group safety nets, we can then get onto working towards solutions to the really important issues, embracing differences of opinion as a means to grant concessions and build a richer student culture. It doesn’t just require cooperation and trust. It requires students to agree that free speech is the underlying mechanism that will help us realise this progress. We must act for the greater good, and put our differences aside. We must engage freely with our fellow students. We must be brilliantly irrational.
James Forsdyke studies PPE at Brasenose College, Oxford
.