Honesty and Discomfort: Contemplation in Times of Uncertainty
The idea for this post started to grow a few weeks ago.
I was curious, and more than a little uncertain. What might my response be if today’s events were taking place 30 years ago - when I was the age of the students making headlines today? What drove my decision making back then? What role does technology play? Is introspection a luxury of middle age?
Suffice to say if you are hoping for a hot take or for me tell you which side to choose, this essay is not for you.
If you are curious to know the uncomfortable places reflection has taken me; about how lived experience shapes my perspective and why I feel it is important to take time to pause, please stick around.
The Benefit of Time
The most unfortunate aspect of young adulthood, is our lack of time.
I mean, there is nothing we can do about it, no matter where your life has taken you by the time you reach twenty, it has still been only twenty years, much of which was spent developing. Time doesn’t equate to wisdom. We aren’t smarter or better people for making it to middle age, or becoming an octogenarian. Young people aren’t less intelligent for their fewer years on the planet.
What time gives us in life, is experience points.
More opportunities to wrestle with information that challenges our view of the world. Realizing we make decisions on a daily basis that both support and contradict our values. If we are lucky, we take time to reflect on our decisions, to consider how our choices were shaped.
A benefit of time is the space it creates in our lives to question ourselves.
I cannot stress the absolute shock I felt recently, upon reading a headline, agreeing with it in principle, only to discover the article was written by someone whom I vehemently disagree with on every other occasion.
The whiplash of thoughts resulting from that moment was painful. Was this a red flag, indicating that the lens I currently view the conflict through is incorrect? Or is this a case of a broken clock being right twice a day? That eventually, this columnist was bound to print an article that aligns with my perspective.
As a young adult, I doubt I ever worried I was on ‘the wrong side’ of anything.
The Confidence and Frustration of Young Adulthood
Speaking of whiplash - that is the experience of young adulthood.
We are old enough to live on our own, or on campus, but not old enough to vote. Or legally drink. Free from our family households, we have a sense of independence, we are exposed to new ideas, new perspectives. We seek to establish our own identity and voice, yet remain heavily influenced by friends, colleagues/classmates, and whomever else we deem worthy: sports figures, social movements, celebrities and now, online influencers.
Excitement accompanies our new sense of belonging. We are inclined to act impulsively more than engage in introspection. We are energized and engaged in a way we may never have felt before. We wield new ideas with the confidence of a tech bro instead of the novices we are.
Choose an -ism, any old -ism will do.
The first time learning about a new concept, an -ism, we likely agree wholeheartedly or reject it outright, based on the values we were taught growing up and because that initial introduction is simplistic. Over time, with lived experience, exposure to alternate perspectives and further education on the -ism, your viewpoint allows for nuance.
The absolute certainty I felt about topics I’d barely been introduced to on campus astounds me now. I thought I had explored them in depth. I thought I had examined them from every conceivable angle. I thought my certainty was informed. My moral compass back then gave me 100% certainty in the viewpoints I held. Had you stuck a microphone or camera in front of me, the BS I would have confidently spewed would make your head spin.
Today, my philosophical compass tells me to take time to reflect on anything I feel that certain about.
Living Through History
The benefit of several more turns around the sun is living through history, seeing first-hand how long it takes for the truth to be revealed and not hiding from the reality of that truth.
I witnessed the illegal detention of Aung San Suu Ky in Myanmar, a Nobel Peace prize winner, by a military who refused to cede power after her democratic election. I saw her ascension to lead Myanmar, only for her government to commit atrocities against their Rohingya population. Shocking echoes of Stalin’s turn after WWII.
This doesn’t leave me jaded, just more allergic to leaders and ideas presented as “the good side” from a populist movement. I also learned the ramifications of political decisions take decades to be fully realized.
I’ve seen propaganda used to justify invasions (incubator babies circa 1991) and terrorist attacks (the 2001 manifesto), both of which are being weaponized again – and recognize that every “side” in a conflict leans into propaganda to energize their supporters and demoralize their opponents. Some attempts seem obvious at the outset, but many of these campaigns and talking points aren’t revealed until the fog of war lifts. Some are never revealed.
The difference between what was reported in the news, the way those stories were framed at the moment and the revelations that followed is a lived experience, reminding me to avoid a rush to judgement.
This approach conflicts with our 24/7 news cycle.
Today’s news sources garner more views for their extreme editorial takes than with their reporting. Even less patient, and with fewer to no misinformation standards, social media fills the vacuum and demands action. Demands you take a side. Demands you lock in wholeheartedly, leaving no room for doubt. In moments such as this, social media tells us there is no time for consideration, for introspection, to pause and ask “is my support being manipulated?”.
Accept everything at face value for the side you’ve chosen and reject everything from the other side outright.
The Role of Influence
Wanting to feel part of something larger, participating in a big movement, is intoxicating. When democratic societies engage in peaceful protest, a right many of us are privileged to exercise, our expectations may not be realized. The existence of a protest does not mean the government must act on it. The role of stable democratic governments in foreign policy is to keep us passionate, but closer-to-the-ground, citizens from leading our country down a populist path. It requires making difficult decisions that we rarely learn about, because they don’t result in escalation and combat.
With apologies to Christopher Nolan’s Tenet, diplomacy is actually what “protects the world from might have been”.
Diplomatic negotiations take into consideration a series of knock-on effects we could not possibly predict. Language matters. Soft influence applies pressure to the right levers to acquire desired results, and understanding that approach is more useful than public insults and preferable to ‘boots on the ground’. Because diplomatic discussions, are often secretive, they appear ineffective, passive and non-existent to the vast majority of us.
Diplomacy doesn’t exist in the social media sphere.
Social media platforms are tools for the transmission of information. Influence there is more akin to schoolyard peer pressure, with greater reach and speed than traditional media. With obscure algorithms designed to reward negative engagement over positive.
I’ve seen how social media has been successfully leveraged, and weaponized, by various social movements in the past decade. I wondered how it might have reshaped a major geopolitical event that has being playing out for 25 years. I started paying attention in grade 10, when more and more of my classmates migrated from one region: Hong Kong.
After 156 years of British rule, On July 1, 1997 Hong Kong entered into what should have been 50 years of autonomous governance, before (re)joining China in 2047.
In advance of this date, many residents of the commercially successful nation fled to Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, fearing what might happen - only 8 years had passed since Tiananmen Square. Large population groups remained in Hong Kong, ambivalent or unable to leave; and certainly, there were those who welcomed China’s increased presence.
Consider a Thought Experiment
I’ve noted a few attributes I shared with today’s young adults: confidence wielding a basic grasp of ‘isms’, a lack of lived experience and one I did not have to contend with, social media.
I wondered, given that combination, what would the global sentiment be towards the Hong Kong agreement?
If the west held stronger anti-capitalist views, would we support Hong Kong’s attempts to maintain their guaranteed autonomy over the global business hub?
Would today’s efforts at decolonialization see us favour Chinese authoritarianism for the people of Hong Kong? Would we silence those who felt freer under British rule than under China’s?
What if China’s government had access to the world’s largest social media platform back then? Would we even know about Tiananmen Square? Would a global narrative build in support of a violent retaking of the island nation, supplanting the peaceful transfer?
There is no correct answer.
And, I feel it necessary to state I am not pro-colonialism, anti-capitalist or against social media. The exercise involves creating hypothetical scenarios to explore where our thoughts take us – especially if it makes us uncomfortable.
Am I answering with emotion or logic? Do I accept how any one of the above could influence how I felt back then? I ask questions, over and over, because I know first-hand how easily we (I) have been emotionally manipulated in the past.
These reflections help me understand the sheer difficulty the world faces when this fog war dissipates, and we try to untangle all the strings of influence currently being pulled.
