Public discourse on politically contested matters—like climate change, refugees, distribution of resources, etc.—seems to be at a low ebb. We need to find ways to address these issues constructively if we are to have any hope of meeting the challenges of the coming years. But how can we be a part of the solution and not just a part of the problem?
To quote the late great Christopher Hitchens in introducing his autobiography, Hitch-22, “The most intense wars are civil wars, just as the most vivid and rending personal conflicts are internal ones, and what I hope to do now is give some idea of what it is like to fight on two fronts at once, to try and keep opposing ideas alive in the same mind, even occasionally to show two faces at the same time.” From the personal to the political, and the intersection of the two, why do we find it so difficult to keep opposing ideas alive in the same mind?
Living with mental illness (my own and that of my husband), I am bombarded with jingoistic slogans like ‘R U OK?’, parroted by gurus of ‘Mindfulness’, and by their minions who wave yellow balloons in my face, or consultants who advise employers to host endless parties, or feign empathy in exchange for docility, or friends who assume we need an ideological revamp. If wellbeing crusaders really cared how we felt, they would be quieter and let us have our contemplation; or ask a complete sentence with rounded vowels, including the last two letters of ‘you’. If a person cannot ask ‘How are you feeling?’ without abbreviating it into an acronym, clearly they have no time to hear us. If we had the power to define mental health, perhaps it would differ from current expectations? Who would the ‘sick’ ones be then?