For a long time, we have been surviving in deep political polarization, which shortly led to the crack of society, the construction of long catalogues of pretense, accusations, stereotypes and ridicule, and the ritualized almost surviving (not to say celebrating) of séances of common antagonization of Poles and (more importantly) Poles. This takes a long time, so it is revealed and increasing fatigue (frustration?) that the state of things on the part of people either unattached, or loosely or based on the summertime feelings associated with their “camp” and yet those who claim that the disintegration of society – which somewhere at the end of specified processes is undoubtedly lurking – is not worth fighting for even the most crucial ideas.
Such persons become a organization to the fresh polarisation that appears on the horizon. They declare to be opponents of primary polarization and argue the most remembered fighters of both “camps”. alternatively of bad emotions, hatred, contempt and expressions of same superiority, they offer dialogue. At first glance, their proposal seems prudent, possibly even salvific. But 2 questions arise immediately: 1. Do they have an thought of how to make this sometimes forced dialog constructive and fruitful? 2. Can they themselves avoid this Polish vice and not let their call for dialog and moderately transform into hostility and hatred towards those who choose to stay in the trenches?
Opting for dialog automatically creates affirmative associations, with reason, foresight and advanced individual culture. However, the rejection of the exit from conflict logic, as confusion, excessive emotionality and "unreformability", raises negative associations. This poses a hazard that contempt and a sense of superiority can shortly besides appear in this fresh polarisation between the "party of dialogue" and the "party of dispute". This affirmative image of the “party of dialogue” is besides a possible trap that can lead to the fetishization of any conversation, any situation in which the feuded “camps” manage to bring to the common table for a moment. dialog can then become an end in itself. Without evaluation of its consequences, it will be a fresh political ritual without any improvement in the overall situation of the full dispute. It will be an empty motion and a burning procedure, but in public perception it will bring affirmative assessments to participants and initiators, which may represent his real reason for being.
However, ritualization and fetishization of dialog is not without dangers. The easiest thing to say is that no substance who or what, it is crucial that the parties to the conflict talk at all, alternatively of fighting each another in social networks and algorithmic media. That's automatically better. But are you certain and always? The apparent dialog brings considerable political and social risks that cannot be forgotten. This is simply a ‘dialogue’ in which 2 or more antagonists present their views to the listeners and to each other, but this ends with its real effect. There is no actual proceeding what the another side says. All the more reason for there to be no analysis, no effort to expel the words of the another side's priorities from the ocean, and hence no effort to realize the motivation of her attitudes. This is simply a crucial moment, which, even in the harshest conflict, sometimes leads to the perception of good intentions in a individual who comes to different conclusions than we do, due to the fact that he thinks differently. But having good intentions connects us to her. Of course, in the absence of proceeding and knowing the another side, there will besides be no final element, or action, or alternatively a modification of action by both sides of the discussions, which have gained better insight into each another through dialog and are making adjustments, in order to take any of their sensitivity into account.
The problem with apparent dialog is that it creates appearances that these stages of working contact with Another have occurred. This shapes certain expectations of the public about changing attitudes, level of emotion and political situation. But this, of course, does not happen, and frustration, aversion, and common accusations only increase. In addition, the apparent dialog creates an chance for the most "deserved veterans" of the Polish-Polish war to warm up in a rational light without cost as individual who "engages in dialogue" and "remains open". It's just a scam. In addition, people who are sometimes tainted with the usage of the most hateful means in the political conflict gain the chance to partially clear their image only in order to enter a fresh attack even on the next day. specified a "dialogue" exposes the another organization to the charge of naivety, and its organizers and promoters from the "party of dialogue" to the charge of cynicism and ephecy.
In the Polish context of 2025, the fetishization of dialog can easy become a further normalization of the presence of people with neo-fascist views in public life. Much has already been done for this standardisation. Today, the utmost right, not straight active in a fundamental political conflict, which has 2 "old" forces, naturally clings to the "party of dialogue" and pretends to be open to various forms of conversation. Her calls for deescalation of political dispute in Poland are drastically contrasting with the political programme, which is frequently based on exclusion from various spheres of life of Poles who do not share alleged conventional values. With increased support for the far right in almost all countries of Europe, there should be a time of increased alarm beating, not a multi-level integration of its politicians into average political dialogue, comparing their tax, pro-family or energy policy programmes with another parties.
In the course of the 2025 Freedom Games, I pointed out these doubts in a brief exchange of views with the representatives of the "party of dialogue". I heard the answer that they were not fetishizing dialogue. They “fetishize the community.” It is inactive a fewer floors higher on the ladder of noble goals – everyone wants to take care of the community now, even by knowing it differently. It's hard to argue with a fetishizing community and get out of it. However, this imagination is even more dangerous, if the thought is to include in the community everyone with a pebbian surname (or at least a Polish passport), regardless of how much effort they put into destroying this community and how memorablely they do not see anything incorrect in their achievements.
This year, even the March of independency has put – in a perverse sense – the fetishization of the community. His motto was “One Nation, Strong Poland”. After years of sharing, excluding, accusing of treason, “indigenousness” and “Europeanism”, would the Polish right abruptly make a extremist return and even request from leftist or liberals to participate in the national community? That's most likely not what they meant, but that would be a fresh theme! His appearance, as a live one, would most likely have much to do with the fact that the possible of war is getting closer, and the support of the Polish Liberal or leftist nationalists and writers in the trenches will most likely not smell...
Photo. Ethics Inc ♪ Oh, yeah ♪ Unsplash
