Miriam Attias Camila Haavisto
In times when the public debate is overheated and citizens and non-citizens alike may feel that they have to quickly form a strong opinion on a topic, it is crucial to ask ourselves how real this feeling is. The sensation of being under threat triggers bodily reactions and these reactions can undermine our capacity to form a rational opinion of an event or a phenomenon. When this happens on a societal level, there is a risk that simplified models of causes and consequences overtake the public debate.
Hence, in the midst of a so-called mediated scandal of morality, as we are now experiencing in light of the debate over sexual crimes and migration, it is important to remember that we do not immediately have to form a strong opinion even if it seems that everybody around us is doing so. When the public debate is fed by a false sense of urgency, the voices of people and groups with narrow agendas tend to gain ground. However, these hastily formed solutions by such individuals and groups with political and ideological interests, rarely form long-lasting strategies for social cohesion.
Responsibility should be also put on the gatekeepers of the so-called legacy media. The timing is now perfect for journalists and other media professionals to calm the overly heated public debate on sexual crimes and migration. If the debate is allowed to escalate freely, more polarisation and hatred will come out of it. The danger: Deconstructing an already polarised debate is very difficult. The good news: There is concrete advice at hand.