While watching the presidential debates I felt like a spectator at Wimbledon. For every serve that Trump made, Biden bid for a return. Likewise Biden barely finished his point when Trump reached for a counter move. Volleys became never ending until the moderator announced the end of set. There was even a fair amount of McEnroe-style banter in the early debates with, I'd imagine, every viewer yelling “you cannot be serious” at some of the juvenile backchat displayed on screen.
This made me wonder whether there could ever be any common ground between two opposing candidates. As a family therapist, the back and forth between ever increasing polarities is a common emotional dance that I see with clients. It causes much anguish and discomfort in all sorts of areas and is commonly known as the therapeutic concept of ‘splitting’.
Splitting occurs in many interactions but is usually noticeable with children whose parents have separated acrimoniously. Often the child wants deeply to maintain closeness with both parents but there is an unspoken assumption of ‘either/or’ in the family. Developing a relationship with one parent automatically creates distance with the other, as the parental relationship is so divided. Children feel torn between their loyalty to either parent and find various emotional ways of managing this painful situation, often resulting in mental health difficulties.
Most of us tend to gravitate emotionally towards polarising narratives in which ‘either/or’ alternatives are presented between two options. Our relational landscape means that one position usually invites a polarity. For example, a victim suggests that there must be a perpetrator in the same way that a patient suggests a doctor, a hero suggests a villain and so on. When we engage in an argument or discussion, unless we accept these polarities, we experience the uncomfortable feeling of being caught between a rock and a hard place. You feel stuck between two false dichotomies, sensing that there must be a third option somewhere, but finding it emotionally impossible to confidently locate one.
The Israel-Palestine debate follows similar patterns. Highlighting the vulnerability and suffering of Palestinian communities is used to suggest that this must be the fault of one omnipotent, bloodthirsty and guilty oppressor. No prizes for guessing who that ends up being. Yet anyone familiar with the history and politics of the Middle East knows that there are multiple responsible contributors to the Palestinian victimisation: powerful, antisemitic terror organisations, failed negotiations, behaviour of neighbouring regions, to name a few.
Sadly, as society relies more heavily on sound bites and cognitive shortcuts, polarising narratives become more and more popular. They become entrenched in today’s default assumptions, replacing details and facts. When I have debated ideas about Israel I often experience this intense discomfort, being pushed into a narrative that I know is inaccurate, but is emotionally inevitable because of the polarised way that it is set up.
Just like in a therapeutic context it takes effort, thought and sensitivity to articulate a nuanced third perspective between polarised view points. This ‘both/and’ position may be difficult to hold on to but is ultimately more mature and reflective of reality than a superficial two option position.
If we learn any life lessons from the American elections of 2020, perhaps it can be that, in every area of life, no topic should suffer the indignity of being simplified into black and white. Especially long standing, complex and political issues need to be treated as such. Let’s all have the patience and bravery to treat difficult discussions in general and particularly politics in the Middle East with the thoughtfulness and balance that they deserve. This approach makes everyone more of a winner. Game, set and match.
Chana Hughes is a family therapist and the rebbetzin of Radlett United Synagogue.
