Believing the wrong narrative: Coercive behaviour in our times

Introduction

Believing in the wrong thing can be dangerous in our times. We see it every day: if you do not believe x then society will kick you out; you become an outsider. This can be attributed to group think; being part of a group may make you act in irrational ways. But something interesting is happening today. Let us look at an example which can illustrate it. Group think can normally be explained as someone acting in a way which he/she would not have acted if not for being part of the group; one would not throw a Molotov cocktail (petrol bomb) into a building of ones own accord, but in a group parade or protest that behaviour is sometimes expected. This is obviously an extreme example, but the idea is simple: when we are in a group, we often act in ways that would be deemed irrational or foolish outside of the group. Currently we have a different situation at hand: Our current group think era “normalizes” the irrational behaviour which is associated with group think. This is done by accepting irrational group think behaviour as the norm or as how life should be. One can think of the myriad examples out there, but one tender example related to our situation now is of climate change. If one does not agree with the popular media rendition of the problem (i.e. give up straws, give up meat etc.) one is deemed to be a climate change denier and labelled as an outsider. The problem here is not about if the person is or is not a denier, rather that our irrational acting (believing what the media tells one without a shred of ones own inquiry) starts to become a norm, rather than the exception. To use our extreme example, it is almost like accepting as a norm the throwing of petrol bombs.

Coercing one to believe

This normalizing practice is also not a peaceful one. People are coerced into accepting it as norm. If this coercion is implicitly or explicitly done, one might not know, but the fact is that most people feel this coercion in some way. Take for example the problem of social media today. One is led to believe that posting a picture or selfie is the norm, but if one feels uncomfortable with this act, one is coerced into doing it “because everyone is doing it”. The problem arises when one is led to believe something which one cannot or does not want to believe, one may say coerced into believing it. The fear of persecution coerces one into doing the irrational thing, i.e. that which one would not normally believe. This is a violent act, blindly passing in front of most people without them knowing it. It might be so bad that those who point this behaviour out is said to be the outsiders. Internalizing this behaviour, doing or believing something not because of the thing itself, but rather because one is coerced into believing/doing it, has become the norm of our society.

Internalizing coerced behaviour

On the fence is the person who does not make the choice, a fence sitter some would say. But is this not the most noble position to take? Is this not the normal position one needs to have? In today's society, those who are fence sitters are frowned upon. One needs to take hold of a position, one needs to hold some position, otherwise other people struggle to classify you. If there is something people cannot stand, it is someone who cannot be classified. Take for example the debate about one’s diet. On the one hand, one has those who fight for their diet (read: ideology). On the other hand, there are those who do not bother with this ideology, in a sense sitting on the fence. Those on either side of the fence cannot handle those on the fence because those on the fence does not stand for anything. In other words, when one has not internalized this coerced behaviour (of choosing a side/narrative) one is impossible to be criticized for holding a position. And this position is one of power, even though it is not abused power, nor an internalized power.

Dangerous narratives

Believing the wrong thing in the current is dangerous. One can be labelled as an outsider, at best; worst case one can be killed for holding the wrong beliefs. Thus, the solution is to not choose a side and sit on the fence. This fence sitting is not a passive one though. One is actively participating in the debate on both sides of the fence, but one does not take a firm position on the side which one stands. In a sense, one does not stand firm in any ideology or dogma, but rather transcends it. The question one needs to ask oneself is this: are you an active fence sitter or a coerced believer? Most of life is not always such an easy either-or decision, most of life is played in the grey area where such a choice is not always there for one to choose. But the fact is that one can always still make a choice in not being coerced into believing or doing something by merely taking a step back (or above or sideways) and saying: I will not be forced to believe this just to accept the most popular or loudest narrative. I will make an informed decision, and if I cannot, then I will suspend judgement or abstain from making a decision.