Disagree to Agree: Strengthening Community in Distressing Times
When I arrived in Oxford, I was fully aware of the diversity that awaited me. I anticipated meeting new people, learning new languages, having novel experiences, and, above all, encountering a wide array of perspectives. During my first week at St Edmund Hall, a partner of the WHT, I had the opportunity to interact with a diverse graduate community, which served as an excellent induction into this cultural richness. The same held true for my programme, Modern South Asian Studies, where students from various countries in South Asia and beyond gathered in one room to discuss the complex history and politics of the region. These distinct spaces that fostered conversations among individuals from diverse backgrounds and worldviews, vividly illustrated the vitality of open dialogues at Oxford.
WHT scholars at the Battle of Ideas
The ‘Battle of Ideas’— a two-day long celebration of differing opinions — was in continuation of this culture of debate and discussion that Oxford espouses. In a time of high polarisation where people often struggle to listen to one another, this festival advocates free speech absolutism, brings together individuals with different worldviews and encourages them to engage in discussions on somewhat controversial and unconventional topics.
The Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust arranged for Scholars to attend these panels and critically engage with them. The panels covered a wide range of important topics for contemporary society, including free speech, tech futures, scientific ethics, moral maze and arts. We, the Scholars, were eager for this day full of discussions, especially in central London, an area very few of us had visited, but all of whom knew the significance of. This also marked the first time that many of us were travelling outside of Oxford and using the train, which added to the excitement!
The day at the debates lived up to our expectations, as the discussions were indeed controversial and highlighted the different axes along which conversations take place in Britain. One of the panels I had a chance to attend was titled “The Politics of Hate: Is Everyone a Bigot but Me?” and featured influential artists and activists. The debate, firmly centred in the British political climate, attempted to understand what constituted ‘hate’. For most, hate was defined through some personal experience, often insecurity, about their changing social position as the world around them rapidly changed. For others, it was determined by context-specific factors, such as genocides, conflicts, and long histories of imperialism. Often, in defining what hate was according to them, the speakers articulated their own worldviews which were couched in the language of exclusion. What was interesting was how their outlooks were informed not just by what was happening around them, but their personal histories, giving us a very clear insight into what drives such thinking. Another panel, which was on Israel’s standing in the world today, featured speakers whose views and relationships to Israel had changed over the years, denoting the dynamic processes that produced a sectarian public space in Israel.
WHT scholars at the Battle of Ideas
All these discussions made apparent the many ways in which discourses were shaped within Britain and clearly showed what did not find space in these, like demonstrations demanding a ceasefire just minutes away from where we were. For us Scholars, who had had very limited interaction with the British socio-political sphere beyond Oxford, this was an eye-opening experience as to the ways in which ingrained worldviews continued to influence people’s behaviours and opinions today. However, instead of outright dismissing them, we made an effort to tell each other about our sessions and articulate our differences and agreements with these views. Those who found the sessions too provocative/ triggering found solace in the community of WHT Scholars who listened to them. In a sense, empathetic leadership did not emanate from these panels, but from the discussions among ourselves that followed.
