Original subtitles

would

try to integrate some of what we began

to address this morning which was about

Free Speech but it and the connection to

freedom and so I thought maybe we could

talk about the loss of Freedom that

comes with polarization

and how do we manage polarities so that

we don't only identify the problems but

also what are ways that we bring people

into a shared reality

and um I think that it's a good entry

point that would allow for your Val to

talk again from the macro level and for

me to tell you there's you know couples

therapy is a very good way to learn

about polarization

uh there's no two people who can be more

unable to hear each other sometimes than

people who once thought they could tell

each other everything

so this is my training ground he's

working with conflictual escalating

couples and uh they cancel each other

out every sentence it's very simple

oh when I think about polarization and

what we heard this morning about the

ability I mean the ability to listen to

people and the ability to talk to people

I think the key

um understanding from a historical

perspective

we're talking about the large scale

level is that when you can't talk the

only thing left to do is fight

that should always be born in mind if we

are in a position I can't listen to them

or I'm not willing to let them talk it

means that you're choosing to fight

because that's the only other option

which is left open

and you know in in a couple then you can

get a divorce Maybe in this situation

but in a country

what do you do

you can split the country or you can

have Civil War or you can have a

dictatorship

something to understand about Democratic

freedoms is that

for most of History large-scale

democracy was simply impossible a

democracy is not something that can

exist just in it at any situation in

most situations democracy is impossible

until the 19th century we don't have any

example any example as far as I know of

a functioning large-scale democracy we

have a lot of example of small-scale

societies which function democratically

whether it's hunter-gatherer bands and

tribes or whether it's small city-states

like Athens we don't have any example of

a large-scale democracy until the 19th

century

because the conditions are just not

there

and one of the conditions is the ability

to have an open and relatively free

public discussion

before the 19th century you just don't

have the communication and information

technology to allow real life discussion

of public affairs

so democracy is usually impossible

when it fails when it's not possible

again you can have dictatorship

dictatorship is is is is possible almost

under any circumstances

or even have a civil war that's also a

possibility or again to split the

country into several parts and and see

if the people in the smaller parts can

get along together can get along

together again Listen and talk uh uh

with one another

and um

so the big questions if we are to keep a

democratic system

to keep Democratic freedoms

is whether we can still talk

which means

whether I can still listen

to the other side

and whether I still allow the other side

to talk because there is also a lot of

questions today who is allowed to talk

about what

and again if if you say to people you're

just not allowed to talk about that

that's a very dangerous Gambit that's a

very dangerous move

it's

think well

if you prefer them to talk about it or

to fight about it

um and I'll give an example a very

controversial example which like is

hanging in the air above many of the

discussions that we had

that

if you think about let's say take the

kind of ultimate other in in many of

these gatherings like the angry white

man in Oklahoma

and what they think and what they and

what they say

and very often people say we don't want

to listen to these people they have been

talking and talking and talking for

centuries forcing everybody to listen

and they have an opinion about

everything it's time they shut up

because yes they have the problems they

have their concerns

but so many people have been silenced

for so many years it's time for other

people to speak for a change

and as a historian I completely agree

with that except

that remember why these people

don't mean to have the conversation for

so many generations and centuries

because they had the guns

and they still have the guns

so what you need to ask yourself

do you prefer them to talk

or to fight

and it's actually a again something that

I often also hear

is about the kind of fragility or

vulnerability suddenly of of white men

and actually and this may also goes to

the therapy thing

finally they are talking about their

vulnerabilities and weaknesses and harm

and whatever

and what they are being told is shut up

we've been listening to you so much

we don't want to hear you even when you

talk about your world and again

it's completely

just it's completely Fair because they

have been talking an awful lot

and it's time to listen to other people

except that there are the guns

it's the again it's it's fair that they

shut up

but it's unwise

so that's that's enlightened

self-interest basically it's a version

of enlightened self-interest I'd better

talk to you than have you take out your

gun

I mean that's

okay sorry I didn't mean to interrupt

no I was thinking when you talked to

Tito they talk or they take out the guns

either they talk or they fight in a

couple they do both all the time

you know that they fight and talk and

yell and Stonewall and and have contempt

and be defensive and be critical I mean

it's everything that you see and the

broad scale I'm a practitioner I'm a

clinician I'm actually

um but I I have often thought that

anybody who has sat with couples for

thousands of hours has may have

something to bring to the conversation

about polarization but what would you

say is the opposite of polarization

um

it's the understanding that we have a

lot of things in common

we have some interests in common we may

have some experiences in common

we agree about a lot of things again the

amazing thing is when you look at many

of the societies today that the

conversation breaks down and people can

no longer talk with one another

the astounding thing is they actually

agree on so many things actually they

agree on many more things that they

agreed before

if you look say at the ideological

battles today

uh say in the western world

they are actually

um

conducted against the background of much

more agreement

than in previous eras

but people don't see

all the things that they agree about so

I in in our language in systemic

thinking about relationships the

opposite of polarization is

complementarity

and complementarity

when it breaks down

becomes polarization and what makes it

break down is actually the inability of

people to hold the complexity of a of a

subject it can be raising children it

can be managing money it can be you know

the free speech that Toby was talking

about earlier and

none of nobody at that panel would want

people to be excluded or shot or you

know they actually agree but a complex

subject is a subject that cannot be

responded to with the either or

which means that people need to be able

to hold the ambivalence the people need

to be able to hold the com the

contradictory parts of the issue and

polarization is actually when you split

the ambivalence and now you become the

proponent of half of the equation and I

become the proponent of the other part

of the equation and I keep talking about

how it is dangerous and it doesn't make

people feel safe and it's uncomfortable

it could hurt someone and it could lead

to a killing three steps later and you

keep talking about how the three steps

later are so far that was kind of the

the conversation earlier and and and why

should I stop here for something that

could maybe happen there but hasn't

really happened and I emphasize the

importance of being able to talk and you

emphasize the importance of having to be

careful as if the one who wants to talk

doesn't care about careful and the one

who wants careful doesn't care about

talk you can bring this structure to

every subject that is complex and where

people do not know how to hold the

complexity which means to hold a

contradictory part of the question

inside of them and so they project one

piece of it onto the other and now you

become the proponent of only that and

every conversation and that's the

problem of polarized conversations and I

think it's no different in large groups

than in two people is that every time I

say something I so completely deny the

thing that you represent or stand for

that I actually reinforce your position

and we say you are impossible without

noticing that what I do makes you even

more impossible

it's a figure eight the more I say what

I say is gonna make you actually say the

opposite thing of what I would actually

want from you but I am the one who is

actually provoking for you to say that

to say that very thing which then makes

me say

this is it that anybody ever seen this

situation

I don't think it's that different when I

sit with you know I used to do groups of

blacks and Jews in America I used to do

groups of Israelis and Palestinians it's

a similar thing so polarity management

actually which is a model and is Claire

here because she was giving it to me

from the field yeah yes because I can't

repeat how you gave it to me from

philosophy but I will give it to you

what was interesting is that

theology the guy who developed it was a

pastoral counselor and so there is

another tradition to it but what what is

what how do you get out and you get out

by doing the exact opposite of what you

actually normally would do which is you

start imagine a square

so this is the position that says we

should say everything or we it could be

we should say everything or we should

put discipline on the children or we

should go to services on Sunday morning

whatever the value fight is doesn't and

honestly when I say it's whatever

because I the most important thing is to

actually not get hooked on the subject

the topic is not what drives it the form

is what drives it the form meaning the

way the conversation goes

people could be talking about Greenpeace

and South Korea and have the same

conversation it would be equally

polarized and once you let go this is

why we can't be Homo sapiens we actually

cannot believe that the subject is what

is driving the division

I mean in those very particular

situations so you start not from trying

to convince this person to win them over

but you start by basically acknowledging

whatever is driving why they think the

way they do so yes of course you don't

want to have people sit in situations

where hateful speeches being said or

racist comments are being of course I

you know because once I have actually

said what you are about to say

I have freed you up to maybe think about

something else for a change

because otherwise if I say the opposite

part of the equation you are going to

play your part I've just set it up and

after I have spoken about what is

underneath what is what gives the

intensity to your comment not the

content of your comment then I go

to down the diagonal like this and I go

to the part of what I think we would be

missing if we only looked at my part my

point of view because that's the next

thing you're about to say if you only

pay attention to this you're not paying

attention to that okay well then I'm

gonna tell you what I'm not paying

attention to

and then we go to what you may not be

paying attention to enough but you don't

have to pay attention because I'm the

one who always brings it up in every one

of these conversations you can only say

half the story because the other side is

systematically going to say the other

side and you know in advance what

they're going to say these are totally

predictable conversations the most

interesting moment for me this morning

was when when uh when I shot said I

actually agree a lot with what you said

and I thought now it becomes interesting

because she's not going to say what one

you know she said I'm a woman I am black

I have my childhood I I got myself into

I'm queer I went into a revelation I

decided to go on social issues and then

she said and I agree with a lot of what

you said I said now listen

because you can otherwise you could have

said I've sat in this conversation every

one of us has sat in that conversation

because I already know what's coming and

we didn't know what was coming and that

to me was a moment of ah I sit straight

now I pay attention and after you've

talked about what may be missing in the

other side only then you bring up what

is so great about the way you think but

the truth is that complex issues

adaptive challenges like technology like

like what is happening to communication

like what is happening to democracy

don't have a right and wrong answer

they just don't I mean if the more one

listens to you the more you see that you

know you need time to even get

perspective and see was it good well you

only know that because 200 years later

you can see whatever happened

couples therapy 101

escalating couples that's one of the

things you do it's extremely challenging

to help people see that what they are

about to say is about to make the other

person say the exact thing that they

wouldn't want them to say

with that because it takes you out of

the essentialist perspective that's just

who you are and that is how you think no

I think this way when I'm in

conversation with you and that's what

she was saying too in other spaces where

we are together in small rooms we are

having these conversations that you

can't have in public

remember

because because I I assume she says

something else so that invites those

other people to not have to do the usual

we co-create each other in polarized

relationships we basically intensify the

other as well as the intensify us I

think that once you begin to think like

that and it takes you a little bit out

of the these are impossible people you

can't have it you can't talk to them

what do you think of that

uh no I I completely agree I mean of

course it's extremely difficult I mean

as difficult as it is to do it in in

couple therapy it's obviously far far

more difficult to do it on the level of

entire countries on the level of the

entire world

um can I ask you something on that

though because in Israel for example

one of the most interesting

conversations that is dealing it for me

is the the parents who lost children

something about just connecting on the

loss of a child allows the people to

humanize each other before they go into

conversation about occupations and

morals and do you think that that is

indeed a good starting point

this is a very very small group there is

a very small group in Israel and

Palestine of parents from both sides who

have lost children because of the

conflict and they meet and and they talk

about it and they talk about the

conflict but this is an extremely small

number of people it doesn't represent at

all what what's happening on on a large

scale

as much as I would like it to be a model

it doesn't see it doesn't seem to not

scalable it's not scalable

um at present at least in Israel we are

going in the opposite direction

of becoming more and more entrenched

more and more convinced that we are a

hundred percent right they are a hundred

percent wrong we are purely we are

completely pure and good that is not a

thing of a tiny thing that is wrong

about us and they are completely evil

and bad there is not even a tiny amount

of Justice in what they say and do

um and um it's an historically

the solution is unlikely to come

from this kind again because of the

immense disparity in power

I think above all else what happened

over the last and this is not the

subject of of this talk but it can

reflect on other problems in other

places in the world what happened over

the last 10 or 15 years is that Israel

just became so much stronger

than it was before

that the prevailing feeling is we no

longer need to talk with them because we

are strong enough to Simply subdue them

and ignore them

so if uh if the disparity in power is

too big

then that's what maybe one used to do in

marriage yeah and then there is no

conversation there can only be you know

surrender

so it's the same if you look at

something like the Russian invasion of

Ukraine

that again The Invasion started you can

say when people stop talking and uh

Putin decided to invade

and there is a very famous saying that

every war ends in exactly the same way

every war ends when people talk

and this sounds very optimistic

because it's it's it it conveys the

impression hey we just need to talk

but it ignores something

that

people sometimes agree to talk only when

they feel

uh uh that oh let's say the other way

around when people will feel very very

powerful and strong they don't see the

point of talking

so when dealing for instance with the

Russian invention of Ukraine if we want

to reach the negotiation table if we

want to reach a point when when talk

first of all

you need to win some victories on the

battlefield otherwise talking is just

impossible

so again it's um

I don't want to kind of

beautify what happens on louds in a

large-scale human societies

but uh uh very often the the only way to

reach

the the good place of of talking and

listening is is after fighting

it's called makeup sex

no there is a version of it in the

twosome I I think this notion of the

power if you look at the traditional

traditional relationships where very

traditional

relate let's say couple relationships

which only were until recently

sanctioned as marriage

um the roles were very clear there was

hierarchy

um and you often heard I don't need to

talk with you about this exactly in fact

you didn't negotiate who needs to wake

up to feed the baby and whose career

matters more and whose family are we

going to go live next to and things were

very clear Things become more

complicated when everything becomes a

freaking negotiation now none of it is

clear and so you need I think in

romantic relationships the conversation

is more important than ever

um I think it's true in family

relationships all together people didn't

need to be able to negotiate as much

because the roles were clear

do you know who could who had the right

to demand for sex you knew who had the

right to claim the children you knew you

know if you want to do couples therapy

in India you never work with the couple

you work with the woman and the

Mother-in-law

you know and that was the India because

that's where I've done it but there's

plenty of other places where that is the

case you know exactly where the power

lies is what I'm trying to say it's not

the masculine power always it's the

mother of the oldest son

um or it's the relationship it's the

Loyalty of the older son to the mother

let's put it like

it like um so I I think that there's a

reason why there is much more escalation

in romantic relationships and it is

because For the First Time if if I fight

about it there's a chance I may actually

get it because your power has weakened

I mean so to use your metaphor it's no

longer so clear who has the power or the

power isn't always manifest the power

isn't always anybody who's had a

two-year-old knows that you know the

power can come from the bottom up yeah

no I mean you you understand it's like

it's not so obvious you know

the person who doesn't function in a

relational system has all the power

the person who keeps everybody awake at

night

because you don't know if they're going

to come home the person who is depressed

the person who is addicted the person

who is driving too fast and whatever the

thing is it's it's

um I think that we could benefit from

looking at relationships

the ones that we are close to every one

of us has had some family of some sort

to actually develop a much more nuanced

view of power in relationships or power

and sexuality for that matter which is

what we were beginning to address

yesterday

um

yeah I think when you look at the large

scale again

it becomes often most complicated when

the power shifts and when you think that

things are actually improving At Last At

Last things are improving at last people

who are completely powerless they get

more power and it's often exactly then

that Things become the most complicated

because you need to negotiate

again and some and quite often societies

they collapse at that point

at the point when things actually seem

to be improving

so to take an example from from a

slightly different political field if

you look at Soviet history

so the Soviet Union collapsed when at

last there was somebody who is

understood that something is wrong with

the system we need to fix it let's start

a process of Reform and that process of

Reform like it released this immense

pensions which which were kept in in a

very very tight and hierarchical way

when they tried to kind of lift a little

of that pressure and try to reform the

system this is when it completely

collapsed

and it's it's a well-known fact in

history that these times of transitions

can be the most dangerous and

complicated

uh partly because people have a lot more

expectations

you know when completely repressed you

don't have expectations when things

improve your expectations increased

dramatically and the second thing is

there is a lot more to negotiate about

and just like you said there is a lot

and also the the feeling is we are now

negotiating the new system no matter if

there's in couples it's like in a couple

the version of that is we're going on a

date it's things are nice so I can

finally have a conversation with you

about all the problems

and then it explodes it's the

expectations have suddenly you know it

seems to be you know she they seemed to

be able to be in a good mood things are

better now we can start to talk about

everything that's wrong yeah and and

again what

super charge is it is the feeling that

we are now building the new system so if

I give up now it's not just a momentary

uh loss or a momentary compromise it

will set a new standard for who knows

for how long so I can't compromise

because we are now building the new

system

and that makes it even more difficult

um and I I do have to say that we we

need even though the the uh parallels

are very interesting we need to be very

very careful also not to make Too Close

comparisons uh because we are talking

about the completely also different

level of levels of violence

uh involved like I I hope this is not a

criticism but like when you talked about

the makeup sex and people were laughing

I was like cringing that you know it's

not that they shouted at each other they

killed tens of thousands of people like

the millions of refugees so the the I I

really like the kind of conversation

that that we have that we kind of

compare the two but we also have to kind

of keep in mind that ultimately it's not

really

a couple having a domestic argument

it's uh when when we talk about breakup

then yes it could be civil war it could

be major war with

refugees and and tens of thousands of of

of people dead

um so it's and this is an interesting

kind of theoretical question that at

what point

I mean what are the similarities between

the small scale and the big scale

and when does it become kind of

uh uh uh dangerous because you also hear

in history a lot of regimes

a building on these similarities like

talking about the state is a family the

king or the president is the father uh

the citizens of the children and this

sometimes goes in a very dangerous uh

Direction so I think that kind of on a

methodological level we need to keep the

two like what what can we learn from the

two situations about each other but when

do we need to keep them like clearly

separate

a very good point I think the learning

is when we see that we too get into

those very polarized similar situations

with people that we are close to and

live with and that we so it gives

ourselves a view of ourselves in those

in a micro level that but yes no I don't

compare makeup I do have a question

though on this thing because you said

it's when things improve

um would you think that

okay my question is this do

authoritarian regimes rise which they

rise kind of they come and go

would because things improve or because

the powers that have been in place I

mostly in that sense the men of whatever

the country and whatever is in that

sense

um are humiliated

now it can be humiliated because the

economic system has broken but basically

that you know I I do want to understand

why the question we had on the first

evening why do these regimes load the

feminine

the feminine in the gay the feminine in

the woman the feminine inside of them

the feminine in the boy that isn't

masculine enough there is something and

it's national socialism was the swim and

militaries in our in Latin it's

systematic that authoritarian regimes

just uh despise

and and want to kill it inside of them

and then want to kill it around them

yeah I think because they identified

with weakness and the one thing they are

kind of they can't stand is admitting

weakness admitting a mistake

uh uh admitting vulnerability

so again and and this is also the same

way that you kind of equate the uh

um

the country with a family so it's also

very very common

story common fantasy to equate the

country with a with the body

and then any thought for instance about

the body being penetrated

oh no like somebody from outside would

penetrate us whether it's immigrant

whether it's it's in war it's fighting

so we always have to keep the the state

very very strong and very muscular and

never let anybody kind of penetrate us

so

also in this level it's the level of the

imagery again of the story of the

fantasy but it also gets translated

into very very concrete actions

um so and I think

this is kind of

jumping to a very different uh topics so

maybe we'll come back but

part of what bothers me and going back

to the issue of talking is

how do we improve things

how do you change things without relying

on on violence

and part of my concern of too much

emphasis on always on power on power

relations is that if everything is just

power

the only way to change things is with

violence

because it's extremely

rare that people would give up that the

powerful would give out the after power

except if they are forced to his

violence so if everything is power

the kind of that we have driven towards

the conclusion that the only thing we

can do is is use power what is the thing

that we're not including when we and

that's and that's the question so is

there something which kind of can work

in a different way what is there other

than than power and two again

possibilities I I can't say that this is

really true but two possibilities that

kind of I'm drawn to and that you see

that a lot of people are trying to go in

that direction one possibility is again

story storytelling that the stories

people tell they are not just a

reflection of their power and their

interests they really believe in the

stories you often very often hear that

like somebody there is kind of a

political argument and somebody comes

with a certain story and the other side

would say you don't really believe that

you're just telling this story because

you have some vested interest and I'm

not full by your story and I'm not

really listening to your story I'm not

arguing with your story because it

doesn't matter at all I'm looking at the

interests behind the story and what kind

of frightens me about that is that if

this is the case the only way you can

change that person is with violence

uh the alternative and

this is a debate whether it's it's going

to if they really believe the story it's

not just the cover-up for their

interests if they really believe the

story there is a chance just a chance

that by listening to their story

and taking it seriously and talking

about it and offering them a different

story or offering them a different

viewpoint on their own story they can

actually change their mind

that's one Avenue of kind of progress

which doesn't immediately go to violence

the other

thing that kind of May escape this

network of power is experience

of course power shapes experience

but the experience itself is something

else like if you describe the entire

network of power in the world not just

between humans also physics you kind of

draw every every uh uh uh Vector of

power in the universe

there is still one thing you don't

understand and that's the experience

itself

you can understand the power that kind

of drives somebody to the deprives

people of food but because there is the

war in Ukraine and because of this and

because of that people in uh somewhere

don't have food and then they go hungry

and you understand all that but to

understand the experience of hunger it's

it's something else

and that's maybe another Avenue for

change which is not through kind of

direct pushing back to using false

violence is by having an experience

that opens your eyes to I I didn't know

so this what you just described is my

definition of therapy

I mean relationships are stories

I typically think that my goal is that

people will come in with one story and

hopefully they will live with another

in couples I think that sometimes you

will find that you have been recruited

for a story that you never auditioned

for

that's the so you suddenly find yourself

like a character in somebody else's plot

but the notion this is narrative therapy

and the goal of therapy is to give

people a different experience so that

they can release themselves from a story

which often doesn't serve them anymore

or it's a constricting story it's a

story that doesn't allow them whatever

it is that is holding them back

um you know to to what was the oh it was

the the first talk in the morning about

the obstacles the restrictions that we

were experiencing so that that is really

you know liberating people from their

from their stories