Register Here!
Focus
Reweaving social fabric, (re)connecting across cultural fissures and refusing a politics of polarization are all vital practices in troubled times. Yet, not all kinds of connections are genuine or healthy. Not all bind us more closely to the kinds of worlds we want to be a part of. And some people -- especially those who have and wish to retain substantial power and privilege -- will cynically and tactically leverage a deepening desire for connection and appropriate the language of liberation to conflate, confuse, and diffuse collective power.
Deep political and social polarization has been a defining feature of the early 21st century in many nations, and especially in the United States of America, a federation that seems more bound than united these days. Many of us are tired of, sometimes betrayed by, or even just plain bored by the duopoly that dominates American politics. Fewer and fewer of us feel like we have a comfortable political home. At the same time, fractious, polarized politics have seriously shrunk the set of people we might invite into our literal homes or even talk to on the sidewalk. It's lonely and seems impossible to move past.
So it is no wonder that we perk up a little and pay renewed attention when we encounter examples of strange bedfellows in public discourse and political life. We smile a little at the idea that incense-burning, superfood- smoothie-sipping, downward-dog-doing moms and gun-toting, lifted-truck-driving, fast-food-feasting dudes might find common ground. Could this combination be craveable like salted caramel or chocolate covered pretzels? Even if it's not as good, it has got to be better than the alternative arrangement: all derision and no discourse.
The refreshment of recombination is often enough to capture attention and build momentum fast. But before we get too charged up by the electric rush of seemingly depolarized discourse, it's worth taking a closer look at what (or who) is casting these characters into the same scene. We do well to consider what kinds of stories they are telling to and with each other.
This is where we have to be really alert to the possible presence and operations of diagonalism, a nuanced concept, that emerges from academic analysis of history, political theory, and human geography. While the dynamics of diagonalism can be challenging to reduce down to a sentence or two, my role here is to make the attempt. Diagonalism is a manufactured post-partisan "alliance" built largely on false pretenses with the unstated aim (made apparent by its outcomes) of advancing fascist, individualistic, nationalist, ableist narratives, worldviews, and ultimately, policies. Diagonalism weaponizes rational, legitimate fears within the populous – especially fears about threats and precarities that don't get their fair share of attention in public discourse and are not being adequately addressed by public policy. Talking about these rational fears can make people feel seen and heard; doing so has the potential to mobilize and unite. Take technology: many folks are skeptical of it, and rightly so. They are leery of trading privacy for convenience, freedom for an app. Many don't have specifics about the root of this fear worked out. Even fewer have a detailed analysis of the systems causing the problems underlying their fears. This unease about under-regulated technologies can be easily leveraged by actors with exclusionary and oppressive agendas, for example by directly comparing and conflating COVID passport apps (safe, privacy-maintaining technology meant to protect lives, especially vulnerable ones) with mandatory Star of David identifiers during Hitler's fascist regime (a tool to dehumanize, oppress, and genocide a people). When one is weaponizing a rational fear, it doesn't much matter to them -- or to the listener -- if the facts are right. Diagonalists are adept at socio-cultural sleight of hand. They redirect our attention away from the real sources of our predicaments via conspiracy theories while quietly laying a few more bricks onto the structural features (e.g., capitalism AND imperialism AND patriarchy AND coloniality...) of modernity that are the walls of our prison.
In her most recent book, Doppleganger, Naomi Klein amply demonstrates how diagonalists operate now and how they've done so in the past. Dipping into history for examples of diagonalism (and related phenomena like doubling and pippikism), Klein finds a very troubling track record. Diagonalists are effective precisely because they draw longed for post-partisan connections while also trafficking in self-serving falsehoods, leaning hard to the authoritarian right, enabling fascism, and creating conditions for xenophobia and (at worst) providing purported justifying for abandonment of human rights commitments and enabling atrocities. While absorbing this analysis, we were struck by the sense that diagonalists tend to capitalize on the same pervasive awful feelings that often draw folks to EcoGather. As Klein keenly observes, diagonalists often get the feelings right, but the facts wrong. Perhaps you are familiar with some of the feelings they tend to prey upon: "the feeling of living in a world with Shadow Lands, the feeling that human misery is someone else’s profit, the feeling of being exhausted by predation and extraction, the feeling that important truths are being hidden."
Klein balances -- and we share -- real empathy and strong cautions for those who get lured into diagonalism. “We feel the brutal futures that lurk behind the glow of our screens, the purr of our engines, the speed of our deliveries. We know the deadly prices that will be paid by our fellow human beings far and near, and by countless other-than-human beings and ecosystems as well.” When the problems are massive and well-documented but government responses are non-existent or inadequate, it can be tempting to fill in the gaps with simpler "catch the villain" narratives, rather than fact-based analyses that connect the dots and pay attention to the relationships between interlocking systems of oppression. Besides, it is comforting to find allies who are willing to stand up for each other and go after some bad guys together.
In this focus session, we will read about diagonalism, discuss/critique the theory, share examples of it from our own experiences, and explore how to remain open to building real relationships across divergent politics without falling into the snare of diagonalism. To prepare for the session, we've provided an excerpt from Doppleganger. Chapter 9, The Far Right Meets The Far Out. It wasn't easy to select a section from this book, which presents a very nuanced, carefully constructed argument. To aid in contextualization, we also point you to Jia Tolentino's interview with Klein about the book, as well as Callison and Slobodian's original, more academic article about diagonalism. As you approach this topic, please remember that we are presenting diagonalism (and Klein's observations about it) as but one perspective on the kinds of rearrangements -- or weaving patterns -- at play in the present. The theory is not meant to encompass or explain everything. Come ready to discuss what it nails and what it misses.
Recommended resources for this EcoGathering: