Congratulations to Scott Downham, PhD

We happy to announce that Scott Downham passed his PhD viva, for the thesis, How Few Citizens are Socialised into Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers, and the Implications for Democracy. His thesis was co-supervised by Ben O’Loughlin and James Sloam, and his examiners were Prof. Shakuntala Banaji (LSE) and Dr. Richard Fletcher (University of Oxford). Thanks to Prof. Joost van Spanje and Prof. Sarah Childs for providing substantive suggestions in Scott's annual reviews. Scott is already a Lecturer at King’s College London.

How Few Citizens are Socialised into Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers, and the Implications for Democracy

Since the shock popularity and victories of Brexit and Donald Trump, there has been concern that citizens exist in democratically dysfunctional ideological bubbles, where they only hear likeminded perspectives. Researchers have examined the extent of these bubbles - particularly through analysis of digital platforms such as search engines and social media. However, these studies are limited in either external or internal validity. This study uses a holistic approach, exploring causes and effects of ‘embubblement’ in one marginal, perhaps high-risk group, young people, who get more news online and are considered more impressionable. This mixed-methods digital ethnography contains a 10-wave cohort study, diary study hybrid. One day a month for 10 months, participants aged 16-18 (n=20) captured any political communication they encountered across all mediums - online and in-person. Embubblement is operationalised not just as the extent to which participants encounter disagreement, but by looking at whether citizens are open-minded to the opposing perspectives. Regression analysis suggests strength of partisanship positively correlates with embubblement (H1), though no participants were strongly embubbled (even strong partisans). No statistically significant correlations emerged between embubblement and increased embubblement over time (H2) or political polarisation (H3). Embubblement did, however, positively correlate with degree of political engagement (H4). Ethnography explored what causes embubblement (RQ1). Embubblement occurred rarely, influenced by structural factors: ‘socialising agents’, such as family, peers, education, media, and events. This thesis makes a new contribution, generating a typology of factors that shape embubblement, incorporating an agent-centred approach. Main factors were agreeable news sites, apps and hyperpartisan social media communities. The research addresses the question of agency – for example, a user making a new TikTok account, to reset personalisation algorithms after realising the existing ones were radicalising her. Implications for schools and policy-makers are addressed through recommendations on how to encourage political engagement without embubbling citizens. 

Does digital media give us more or less control of our personal identity narratives?

Reflecting on news from Israel and Gaza, our recent Narratives in World Politics student Anais Almi offers some thoughts about how our personal and social identities work as events unfold in the world.

Does digital media give us more or less control of our personal identity narratives?

We live in an era where our daily information is processed through digital media. We are flooded with an abundance of news and opinions daily. What do we trust? What do we believe? I will argue that digital media as an environment allows for our collective identity to rise while making our personal identity more defined and precise. I look at this through an Autonomous framework given by Weinstein, and a listener and speaker base defence from Scanlon and Shiffrin. I will also look at my personal experience through an autoethnography framework. I argue that we have seen a rise of a collective identity narrative within digital media during Covid-19. Yes, these online communities can create confusion regarding our personal identity narrative. However, through the framework chosen, I will demonstrate that this allows us as individuals to be more specific in our choices regarding 'post', 'share' or 'follow', leading us to have a more precise and defined personal identity.

Digital media as an environment embodies freedom of speech. Autonomy, as described by Weinstein, entails self-direction and living according to one's authentic desires and identity. Autonomy is compromised when others make decisions on our behalf, substituting their judgment for ours. This concept can be applied to digital media, where two defences challenge the limits on autonomy in free speech. First, Scanlon's listener-based defence argues that autonomous individuals must independently consider judgments about what to believe or do. The responsibility for any harm resulting from speech lies with individual receivers who, as autonomous agents, make choices based on the information they receive. This perspective can be linked to digital media algorithms. Second, Shiffrin's speaker-based defence posits that autonomous thinkers have an interest in knowing the contents of their own minds, thinking, exercising their imaginations, and forming authentic identities. Speech, from both speakers and listeners, is essential to realizing these interests.

This defence can also be connected to personal experiences with online communities. Our personal identity narratives are rooted in factors such as culture, language, family values, religion, and political views. Laura Roselle's study reveals a link between family history stories, memories, and political views, suggesting that family history narratives influence our political perspectives (Roselle and Husser, 2021). Examining digital media as an environment reveals its role in shaping our personal identity narratives. Digital media employ algorithms that cater content to our interests, and we actively engage with and select content that aligns with our personal identities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the engagement in online communities surged, driven by the need for connection and shared narratives. This growth was not just about forming social groups but about creating communities that shared common narratives, as seen in movements like Black Lives Matter and Take Your Hands Off My Hijab. Individuals blended aspects of their personal identity narratives within digital media with these communities, resulting in the formation of collective identities.

Image of the model Rawdah Mohamed who started the movement on social media with this image - see https://worldhijabday.com/hands-off-my-hijab/

One can argue that being placed into such online community can confuse our personal identity. What is ours, and what is others? People's opinions come and go, but what do we make of our own? This is where the autonomous framework becomes crucia, where digital media serve as a hub for information and free speech. While external factors like location, peer influence, and political affiliations impact our online presence, we actively shape our digital identity. We make choices about what the algorithm presents to us, but it's important to note that these choices are influenced by our narrative outside the digital realm.

Additional daily time spent on social media platforms by users in the United States due to coronavirus pandemic as of March 2020 - see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116148/more-time-spent-social-media-platforms-users-usa-coronavirus/

Digital media offers a multitude of perspectives on our personal identity narrative, potentially causing confusion. Two defenses emerge to address this confusion. The listener-based defense asserts that we process others' input and independently form our output. Applied to digital media, this means the algorithm may present various viewpoints on a topic, but we autonomously select the one that aligns with our personal identity narrative. The speaker-based defense argues that, to truly understand our interests, we must actively engage as both speakers and listeners. In this context, individuals influence each other's narratives, leading to the formation of collective identities in online communities. This sharing of narratives enhances our personal identity rather than overshadowing it. It encourages us to refine our personal identity by testing our beliefs against others, ensuring a more precise alignment with our true interests. Creating a collective narrative doesn't erase our personal narrative but enriches it through interaction and mutual influence.

Looking at my personal experience, I never really found myself a part of an online community. I have always identified as a Belgian and Tunisian girl who was brought up with two faiths. The way I identified had never been a problem for me; it was a conversation starter. People always seemed fascinated how two religions that hated each other could marry and let their children learn about other religions. My mom is Jewish, my dad is Muslim, and I went to a Catholic school. I have always been proud to say how I identified until May 2021, the year of me turning 20, I was faced with a dilemma my whole identity was being questioned; digital media as a whole made me question my personal identity narrative.

The Israeli and Palestinian conflict has been something I was exposed to relatively young. My parents had explained to me briefly what it was about and why people found it so great that they were married due to the stigma around the Jewish and Muslim hate. I quickly understood that this was due to historical events and lands, not the people or their beliefs. When Israel started to bomb Palestine, I genuinely couldn't understand how Israelis could be happy about it. For me, it was attacking human rights, nothing to do with religion. Israeli citizens are brought up with a different way to view this conflict that we, as Western citizens are not being taught. For them, this land is theirs. It is their due, hence why it is justifiable for them to take action for it. This is where things got confusing for me. I have many American Jewish friends online who openly took a stand for Israel; I was disgusted how they could not see they were hurting people. I also have many Muslim friends who took a stand, and most of my Western friends did too; they weren't shaming the government's action. Many were shaming the people - but not as a nationality but as a religion. It wasn't about Israel, it was about Jewish people. This is where I started to question myself, my stands, my friends, and my own narrative. Who am I? What am I supposed to support? I did not agree with the people that shamed the Jewish faith, and I did not agree with the people that were not seeing how it was purely the destruction of lives.

I was lost, but after deep reflection, I came to my senses. I did not have to fit the mould, and I took the stand, my stand which was: humanity. I posted, "I am both Muslim and Jewish - I am for human rights, not ethnic cleansing. You can be Pro-Palestine without being Anti-Semitic, so please toward your anger to the Israeli government, not the Jewish community. As Muslims, we know far too well what it is to be painted with the same brush as the evil individuals that do not represent us, so please know the difference and educate yourself before making anti-Semitic judgements." I was scared about people's reactions; I had been asked multiple times my stand and still had not answered. I became anxious, worried that I would lose friends. This post changed me, the responses I had gotten were supportive, and it turns out that many people struggled with the same dilemma as I did. By sharing my own narrative and struggle with it, people started to share their own. Together, we found a collective identity that lies in the middle of a conflict that is way bigger than us. I think if I had not taken the autonomous decision to share my thoughts, I might have never had a response to my dilemma. I might have never refined my personal identity narrative to find a collective that makes me who I am.

A Palestinian demonstrator holds a banner of the Facebook logo. © 2016 Mohammed Talatene/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

More recently in October 2023 we’ve seen a second wave of war in the Middle East. Israel was attacked and all the Western media and politicians sided with them, cutting all aid to Palestinians civilians. This time around things are different. It’s the digital narrative against the political discourse. Some people most material from inside the conflict, this video by Plestia Alaqad for instance:

When looking at social media recently I’ve been disgusted if not horrified by the things we interact with. The main thing I’ve noticed which isn’t mentioned in the mainstream media is that most religious Jews are against the Israeli government. Most of them don’t agree with the Zionist views and their take on Palestine. Palestine is undergoing a genocide in my opinion. This isn’t my personal view talking but numbers. The Western politicians all say they don’t condone act of terrorism but what about what Israel is doing?

Picture taken in a local supermarket by Yehia Hamza on Thursday the 19th of October 2023.

This second wave raised in me questions I had left behind me a while ago, things such as do I need to pick a side? Do I pick my mom’s or my dad’s side? This made me question my personal identity as well as my collective identity. But once again, I stood my ground and chose humanity. In this case I do not condone the act of terrorism by the Hamas terrorist group but neither do I agree with cutting all supplied to water, food and electricity to innocent civilians. In my opinion this war has now gone far past a conflict or an issue on religion. This has raised concerns for me about how we view communities. Why do we need to have a ‘bad guy’? Why is one right and the other wrong? I’ve noticed that many Jews and Muslims aligned against the political discourse surrounding this conflict, they all choose humanity. Of course, we always have radical people online who want their voice to be heard more than others, but how do they expect to be heard if all they do is attack someone else’s religious belief?

Online montage – no Copyright – illustrates rapid change in discourse by politicians.

I think this new era of interacting with war material first-hand really shed a light to the wider public about media biases. More and more people want justice not for them but for all both Israelis and Palestinians. Why? It is because at the end of the day they are all just humans who have a personal identity which is linked to a community identity. These identities all link due to values and morals. So why blame a religion when truly the problem is the political discourse surrounding this conflict? Many people started calling out media outlets for their bias questions and statement in favour of Israel. What doesn’t seem to make sense to me is how or more so why do they allow the Israeli government to bomb UN aid relief, schools, hospitals and much more. If we state that we do not condone terrorist acts what does this mean? Are we allowing genocide? Are we allowing civilians who have nothing to do with this die? Many pro-Israel voices say they support Palestine and are just against Hamas, but how can we explain the Israeli targets? These are all questions I cannot answer but I found refuge in my online community. None of us understand this thought process. We are all here for humanity and don’t understand why some would want to destroy others. Lastly, I’d like to go back to the algorithm. Recently it’s been promoting pro-Israeli posts and demonetizing pro-Palestine posts. Is this something we’re going to have to worry about from now on? Is our own online identity being redefined by the system?

This goes to prove that looking at digital media as an environment of autonomous freedom of speech while taking into account its defence does allow for our collective identity to rise, while making our personal identity more defined and precise. This second wave in the Middle East has raised some very interesting questions that we all can explore further.

Bibliography:

·       Botticello, C. (2022). 105 Online Community Stats To Know: The Complete List (2021). [online] peerboard.com. Available at: https://peerboard.com/resources/online-community-statistics [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Dunn, T.R. and Myers, W.B. (2020). Contemporary Autoethnography Is Digital Autoethnography. Journal of Autoethnography, 1(1), pp.43–59.

·       Olson, E.T. (2015). Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.

·       PeerBoard (2021). Users Are Tired of Social Media Groups and Are Shifting to Independent Online Communities, New Study by PeerBoard. [online] GlobeNewswire News Room. Available at: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/10/26/2320953/0/en/Users-Are-Tired-of-Social-Media-Groups-and-Are-Shifting-to-Independent-Online-Communities-New-Study-by-PeerBoard.html [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Roselle, L. and Husser, Ja. (2021). The Political Consequences of Family Memories - PowerPoint Presentation. Department of Political Science and Policy Studies. PowerPoint Given in Week 3: Personal Identity Narrative for PR3498 by Laura Roselle on 31/01/2022.

·       Scanlon, T. (1972). A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy & Public Affairs, [online] 1(2), pp.204–226. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971.

·       Shiffrin, S.V. (2011). A thinker-based approach to freedom of speech. Constitutional Commentary, [online] Volume 27(Number 2). Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/163435 [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Weinstein, J. (2011). PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AS THE CENTRAL VALUE OF AMERICAN FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE. Virginia Law Review, [online] 97(3), pp.491–514. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41261517?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 27 Feb. 2021].

Shakespearean politics and the politics of Shakespeare, by Prachi Chitre

Our new MSc student Prachi Chitre has written an excellent piece on the politics of culture, and culture of politics. Read here:

Shakespearean politics and the politics of Shakespeare

Hath not a Jew eyes? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

(Shakespeare, 2005, 5.3:45)

It’s no secret that the Bard was the master of political intrigue. Some of his most famous plays – Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Merchant of Venice, and The Tempest – all contain varying currents of historical politics at the time. Several critics have expounded heavily on how Shakespeare aptly captured and depicted a range of human characters, personalities and emotions, but perhaps more importantly how relevant these depictions are in today’s times too.

Shakespeare in India (The Hindu)

In India in 2018 there was a project started by schools across the country called Native Shakespeare, which encouraged the reading of various Shakespearean texts in native languages such as Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada. The purpose behind this was to celebrate two unique cultures – an English tradition, reinterpreted by local peoples in their native languages. The project was an enormous success. At the time, I was working as an educator with a local school in my city for special needs children.

As one of the curriculum directors for the school, I engaged with the Maharashtrian Institute for Sign Language in order to adapt the play The Tempest for the school children. This involved developing a special curriculum and building apps which would convert the original text into Marathi and enable students to adapt and perform the play. The launch of this project had mixed reactions. From the cultural elite, it was a positive initiative to educate young minds and teach children about some of the finest literature that was ever written. On the other hand, certain media outlets viewed this as another form of colonialism. Why bring Shakespeare into the curriculum at all? Didn’t India have its own brilliant writers such as Tagore, Narayan, Seth and Desai?

At its very core, The Tempest – other than being a fantastical drama filled with magic, fairies and illusions -- is also deeply political. It talks about a ruler who was usurped, banished and who conquers a native island. It is also a story about reclamation and vengeance. Prospero’s role as ultimate dictator and authoritarian ruler, his control over Ariel, Caliban and his own daughter Miranda, raise pertinent questions of tyranny and rule. Who is a good leader? What are the qualities that draw a fine line between a hero and a despot? And most importantly, is anyone justified in any sort of conquest? Although written almost 500 years ago, Shakespeare’s last play has resounding echoes in today’s political climate. India, as the world’s largest democracy, is forced to encounter her own conundrum of tyranny, law, order and conquest. Almost seventy years after independence, she is struggling with the crushing weight of religious persecution, division and an inherent fear of diversity, differences and freedom of thought. Sectarianism tears the country apart. As an immigrant I must reckon Indians to ask themselves the same questions which Prospero asks in the Tempest: Are we really a brave new world? (Shakespeare, 2005, 5.5:20)

In 2011, a hip-hop artist Akala set in motion a project that explored global cultural debates about the power of language and its interpretations across the world. Akala, an award winning hip-hop artist, collaborated with the British Council in order to promote the arts across multiple countries including Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Africa. He launched the Hip-hop Shakespeare Company, a music production house and invited famous actors such as Sir Ian McKellen and Cicely Berry to participate. Merchant of Venice was one of his special productions that incorporated hip-hop into the script, adapting the play for a 21st century audience. This was a unique initiative to reach out to millennials and the Gen-Z population who commonly regard Shakespeare as archaic and out of date. But Akala managed to appeal to the sensibility of the younger generations by speaking their language and passing on the timeless essence of fine literature and art. (TedX x 2011)

Akala x Shakespeare (Google Images)

            Merchant of Venice addresses religious persecution. But it also talks about persecution in general: the rich versus the poor, the privileged versus the unprivileged, the first world versus the third world. In the 21st century, we are not any far from persecution than audiences in the 16th century knew. At the time of writing this article, the war against Ukraine is very much being waged, another war in Israel-Palestine has recently erupted, not to mention the innumerable conflicts and examples of civil violence happening in the Middle East, Africa, and across Europe. Although historical contexts and timelines might vary, the narrative is always the same: it is the weaker sections of society being persecuted by the supposedly stronger, dominating ones. America in particular seems to encounter persecution on a new level of intolerance and polarisation: gun control, abortion rights, and anti-immigrant spirit all point towards a breakdown in democratic systems and a decline in inclusive spirit.

             Last, but not the least, perhaps my favourite Shakespearean drama would have to be Julius Caesar. In this play, probably Shakespeare’s most masterfully-packed political tragedy, readers encounter a real-historical event that was brought to life by the playwright. The fluidity and impact of language, the quick shift of scenes and the thunderous speeches by Brutus and Antony continue to win hearts even today. Last year, I had the opportunity to witness an adaptation of Julius Caesar at the National Theatre in London. It was a unique, post-modern version in which Caesar was a successful finance tycoon. It also had fun features such as mapping the Tube’s arrival onto Caesar’s death: ‘One minute until Julius Caesar dies,’ building a momentum which was volcanic. (Julius Caesar, 2022)

Julius Caesar, London (Archives, Royal National Theatre)

What was interesting about the postmodern version was that the themes of murder, betrayal, succession and political turmoil are as in tune with a 21st century world as they were with 16th century Elizabethan England. One could hardly misplace the new Julius Caesar at Wall Street as compared to the original Roman general. This play was also interactive. The audience were encouraged to complete online surveys during performances, the results of which were displayed on a screen. The data from all these surveys was then compiled and fed into an Instagram series called: Et tu Brute? It aimed to understand how modern audiences feel about large-scale political betrayal, assassination, drama and the continuation of dominant empires (no different than Rome in 44 BC).

The survey asked some thought-provoking questions: Do the means always justify the ends? Do we answer first to the call of duty or to personal convictions? What separates the personal from the political? How do we deify our leaders and then justify their downfall? As we loom towards a new technological, political and economic dawn in the history of mankind, do we really follow Brutus’ advice, ‘there’s a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads on to fortune’ (Shakespeare, 2005, 1.2:177) or like Cassius, do we reluctantly admit that ‘The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves?’ (Shakespeare, 2005, 1.2:155)

References

Acharya, S. (2019). ‘Should Shakespeare Still be Taught in Indian Schools?’, The Curious  Reader, (April), pp.8-15

Dickinson, A. (2016). ‘Global Shakespeare’, British Library, 17(3), pp. 257-268. doi: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/global-shakespeare

Julius Caesar. William Shakespeare. (2022). Directed by David Smith. [National Theatre, London. 14 November].

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Merchant of Venice. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 5.3:45.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). The Tempest. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 5.5:20.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Julius Caesar. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 1.2:177.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Julius Caesar. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 1.2:155.

TedXTalks (2011) Hip-Hop & Shakespeare? Akala at TEDXAldeburgh. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbtkLA3GrY

Call for papers: What Matters? The Politics of Narrating War

What Matters? The Politics of Narrating War

University of Massachusetts Lowell, 17 May 2024

This workshop brings scholars together to investigate how governments generate public support for foreign policy in times of war. We ask scholars to consider a global politics of pluralist concepts and experiences of history, entanglement, identity and other processes, and what contestation this generates about, ultimately, what matters. By this we mean the moral and political imperatives but also, critically, the philosophical conceptions people hold about what “stuff” in the world must be considered to make sense of a war, and what can be ignored.  

It begins with the premise that narrations of conflict are not merely representations of the conflict itself, but also ontologically productive. Political leaders and media elites’ narratives create for their audiences novel scientific ontologies—catalogues of substances and processes involved in the situation under investigation. These scientific ontologies serve as mental maps and, in turn, they promote strategic purposes, encouraging certain policy responses and discouraging others. How do political and media actors create such maps for audiences, and does this shape how audiences think of those conflicts and their state’s foreign policies? How do citizens themselves use digital media to piece together what is meaningful about a war – what counts? Following Lerner and O’Loughlin’s recent article in International Studies Quarterly, we refer to these narratives as strategic ontologies. As they are continually narrated, strategic ontologies’ innovations can shape political imaginaries and policy preferences, often enduring beyond the context in which they are originally formulated.

Inspired by this framework, this workshop welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions relating to the politics of narrating war. How do political and media elites and all other actors – NGOs, citizens, legal bodies, and so on – narrate what matters in a conflict? What impacts do these mental maps or ‘strategic ontologies’ have? Further, what ethical issues are at stake in choosing between alternative narratives of conflict? What do differing narratives highlight and occlude?

The workshop is jointly sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Queen’s University Belfast because of its longstanding research and exchange partnerships with US universities, and the journal Media, War, and Conflict, which has published over a decade of research on the role of war narratives in both contemporary and historical cases. The goals will be to foster dialogue about the politics of narrating war, as well as to bring together potential contributions for a special issue.

Those interested should submit their paper’s title and abstract (<250 words), as well as a short bio (<50 words) to the three convenors of the workshop (contact details listed below).

Funds are available to cover some of the costs of transport and lodging for selected workshop participants. Please indicate whether you wish to be considered for funding of those costs.

Deadline: 15 November 2023

Adam B. Lerner

Associate Professor of Political Science, Director of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts
University of Massachusetts at Lowell

adam_lerner@uml.edu

Alister Miskimmon

Professor, School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen’s University, Belfast

A.Miskimmon@qub.ac.uk

Ben O’Loughlin

Professor of Politics and International Relations, Director of the New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London

Ben.Oloughlin@rhul.ac.uk

Strategic ontologies - how to agree on what we even communicate about?

Political disagreement occurs often because actors might use the same words but they’re talking about very different things. Adam Lerner and Ben O’Loughlin have published an article explaining this, entitled, Strategic Ontologies: Narrative and Meso-Level Theorizing in International Politics. Read it here in International Studies Quarterly. Ben also made a podcast explaining the idea — listen to it here — kindly hosted by Will Youmans at George Washington University.

This is a very basic point. What drives many disputes is nobody can agree what actually exists, so they argue about different processes, entities, and experiences. UK leaders talk about climate change in terms of new technology, new jobs, changing energy supplies. In other parts of the world, if you ask about climate change people will talk about lives already lost, not being able to leave the house, likely migration to places on earth where its not 40-50 degrees, and their fear of conflict and war that migration could cause. They talk about the loss of land that is sacred and fundamental to their identity. Its a completely different conversation. Chinese leaders bring in ideas about nature's relationship to man, but downplay any question of responsibility. Every region has its own way of classifying what exists and where attention must focus. 

Political leaders do some of this deliberately. Western and Chinese leaders don't want to talk about how poor countries understand climate change because if those leaders accept that poor countries’ stuff is what is actually happening, the West and China would be legally liable, and have to pay reparations on a huge scale for many decades. Hence, this talk about what 'stuff' counts, or what ontology, is strategic.

Ben has observed this often when working with policymakers. Many decide first what counts, which implies what they will model, what targets they could aim for using that model, and they base decisions on those targets. Anything else, they ignore. But people in other countries prioritise what our leaders ignore even on the same issue.

How anyone can bridge this is a big debate in the field of ethics right now. How to entertain multiple ontologies at once so that we can create dialogue? We live in a pluriverse of competing ontologies that few can comprehend. This is where communication could help, but only when people are open to moving towards that wider comprehension.