Polarisation Isn’t The Worst When Closure Isn’t The Best

All conflict leads to resolution, but some resolution only leads to more conflict

Image by moritz320

In the face of political radicalism, one thing most politicians tend to agree on is that society becomes more polarised, and that this isn’t a good thing.

Violent conflict is often triggered when that polarisation reaches a point of no return. When a side decides that any form of compromise would mean defeat, it is left with no other option than a call to arms. The most obnoxious fascist movements have been be justified and supported as the only means to bring a sense of order to a turbulent time. Bloody revolutions have been praised for doing away with unsustainable regimes based on cruel subjugation.

Indeed, the worst dictatorships have been preferred to chaos. Polarisation cannot last forever. It stretches until it breaks, and when it does, all hell breaks loose too, until a side is victorious, for violent conflict is also unsustainable in the long run. Conflict resolution, regardless of who has won the war, is seen as closure. We may be poorer, we may be less free, we may no longer be who we once were, but we are less… polarised. Are we, though?

I think closure is often overrated. Closure cannot be bought at any price. Just because…