On September 20, protests for and against gender education at school led to a clash in the streets of Montreal.

Then, from 7 to 25 October, the city became the scene of some 50 hateful acts related to the war in Gaza. Unfortunate events, such as the attack on a Montreal woman because of her support for the Palestinian cause and the attack on a Jewish center with a Molotov cocktail, reminded us of the inexorable increase in violence.

Faced with this violence and the polarization of public debates, La Converse consulted two specialists, one in radicalization and the other in intercultural mediation.

These two professionals share a conviction: dialogue remains the essential remedy for emerging from this deleterious climate.

‍

Who is becoming radicalized, and why?

‍

Louis Audet-Gosselin is the scientific and strategic director of the Center for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence (CPRMV). This organization is a research center that also offers educational services on radicalization, support and psychological intervention to the Montreal and Quebec population.

‍

Definition

‍

“When we talk about radicalization, we are mainly referring to a very strong identification with an exclusive group that sees itself in violent opposition to other groups in society”, begins the director.

“This means that you can no longer hear the views of others, which leads to a form of dehumanization of others and to the legitimization of violence, often at the expense of democratic principles.” According to him, this phenomenon can occur in any political group.

‍

Marginalization

‍

Several vulnerability factors push some individuals, marked by a feeling of marginalization and social exclusion, to take the path of radicalization.

“Whether it's an objective reality or a biased perception, many people feel excluded and targeted, feeling that they don't have the right to express controversial opinions, doubt, or even criticise without being stigmatized.”

He mentions the example of adolescents who have fallen under the influence of the male influencer Andrew Tate. “They turn to misogyny because they feel excluded and socially devalued.”

He also explains that the feeling of marginalization reinforces the perception of injustice, of “double standards”.

‍

On line

‍

“There is an overrepresentation of individuals living primarily in the virtual world among those who commit violent acts in the name of an ideology. There's a pretty extreme disconnect from real society.”

The researcher notes that the majority of people who become radicalized often have a relatively homogeneous and not very diverse social circle. “Online, we are no longer necessarily in a society where we have to deal with diverse people, including those who annoy us, or even those who we value despite our differences for some reason. All of that goes away. It's becoming more and more common to get stuck in bubbles where people share our opinions.”

The screen also creates a distance from face-to-face conversations, where humanizing the other is more likely. “In the virtual world, it's easier to dehumanize those who don't share our views—which leads to polarization and violence.”

Social networks also play a significant role in this regard. “The speed at which information is disseminated on these platforms is fuelling polarization. Instant reactions leave no time to verify information or to consider different perspectives, leading to a rapid escalation of tensions. Besides, algorithms can also push users towards more and more extreme content.”

‍

‍

A structural problem

‍

The D^R Audet-Gosselin emphasizes that the responsibility for radicalization cannot be attributed solely to the persons concerned. It highlights the role of certain political, media and social discourses in facilitating radicalization.

“In public deliberations, debates quickly polarize around solutions that are radical or clearly against The other party, thus discarding all positions that are not at the extremes. This tendency to see any difference as an opposition suppresses nuances and reinforces common cognitive biases.”

‍

The urgency of dialogue

‍

In today's society, “we really need spaces for dialogue”, he declares.

The scientific and strategic director believes that in Quebec, there is indeed a tendency to establish dialogues in a hasty manner, often in reaction to crisis situations. “Especially in school environments, where teachers are overwhelmed. Dialogue is not the priority when you take into account the level of stress they are facing.”

The same observation applies to community organizations: “They are underfunded”, believes the D.^R Audet-Gosselin.

“Publicly, there is no more space to express doubts without being demonized. This lack of dialogue means that when people look for a place to express themselves, they end up running into extremist groups.”

“The majority of people are probably not as strong in their initial views. On the other hand, there are really groups of people who will exploit crises for extremist purposes, because they have hateful intentions. These organized groups are ready to provide ready-made answers and organize protests to bring all these people together.”

Second, dialogue has a major objective: to humanize. “So, you have to go in with kindness, without judgment and with the intention of understanding — not convincing.”

He also gives advice to people who witness a process of radicalization to consult the website of the CPRMV and to use the resources offered by the organization.

“You can only help those who are open to receiving help. That is why the role of witnesses is crucial. If you see a person who is undergoing a process of radicalization, contact us so that we can accompany you safely and also support people in the process of radicalization.”

‍

‍

What is dialogue exactly?

‍

To find out how to establish a dialogue, we consulted Michèle Vatz Laaroussi, professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Sherbrooke. She played an essential role in the design and implementation of the master's program in intercultural mediation at this educational institution.

In the Support guide for action-mediation research, the researcher and her peers highlight the fact that “dialogue is not a contradictory debate, a one-way discourse, an argument or a quest for truth.”

“Rather, it is an exchange of words, ideas, beliefs, rooted in the recognition of others and their differences. It's a co-creation.”

The dialogue initiative comes as a result of the realization that polarization harms everyone — people on one side as well as those on the other, or more simply individuals within society.

‍

The conditions of dialogue

‍

Small groups

‍

• “Dialogue is generally only possible within small groups, especially in times of conflict and great tensions”, underlines the social worker. She cites demonstrations and counter-demonstrations as examples of situations that are not conducive to dialogue.

“In times when we are in confrontation, we are rarely able to give up our own position and get out of our own emotions to listen to the other person. However, it is possible to organize dialogues after a demonstration, or even before, in order to minimize the damage during these events.”

‍

• “The people we approach to participate in the dialogue are generally those who are not highly polarized and who are closer to the center,” she says. “These individuals play a major role because after the dialogue, they can explore other positions and facilitate discussions with their peers within their own group.”

‍

Need a third party

‍

• “Whether they are allies, facilitating organizations or professional mediators, the presence of a third party is crucial, as it makes it possible to avoid falling into debate and to engage in genuine dialogue”, adds Mr.^Me Go Laroussi.

• “It may seem obvious, but mediators need to remain impartial, while ensuring respect for each individual. They are guides for the participants and guide them towards non-violent communication,” she insists.

‍

A friendly climate and a safe environment

‍

• “Creating a friendly atmosphere is essential.” To encourage the informal development of individual connections, Professor Vatz Laaroussi recommends “sharing a meal or a snack” or “that each group makes its own contribution.” Artistic expression is also a good medium.

• “A safe environment is characterized by the recognition of the diversity of society, honoring each individual in their rich identity.” This also requires the establishment of rules that promote non-violent communication. “For example, it is necessary to express yourself to the “I” rather than speaking on behalf of the other party. This is essential for maintaining respectful, sincere, and profound communication.”

• Then, “[mediators] must be... attentive to comments that may be offensive, racist or hurtful in order to resume them quickly and not to allow power relationships and inequalities to occur again during mediation.”

• “You have to think of a meeting place that is equidistant for everyone, and that accommodates participants in terms of accessibility.”

‍

Pre-mediation

‍

• It is not enough to bring opposing parties together in a dialogue. The professor explains that a third party must first meet these groups separately as part of a preparation. “This is called pre-meditation.”

‍

She insists on the importance of this stage, because it allows members of each group to express themselves freely with individuals who share their ideology.

“It creates a space for cultural safety, where everyone feels comfortable in their own group. It allows participants to express themselves without restraint, sometimes strongly or even violently, but in a climate of mutual trust, without judgment,” she adds.

During this stage, the conflict can be put on the table and analyzed from other perspectives.

During the mediation “Feminisms in dialogue” *, the organizers prepared several exercises to move forward towards dialogue. One of these concerns self-definition, an approach that, for many, constitutes “an initial reflection on the question “Who are we?” , without being categorized by others.”

The exercise “J”E We see us, I see them, they [they] see me” invites each person to express their impressions of their own group as well as on a group that they perceive as being remote. This reflection aims to deal with tensions and encourages participants to share their experiences and prejudices.

‍

‍

‍

• The role of a third party is to help participants deconstruct prejudices and their origins, while humanizing both parties. “What conflicts most often are prejudices, misunderstandings, mutual ignorance, and a lot of misunderstandings,” notes the professor. Before entering into a dialogue and meeting the other side, all this must be recognized.”

‍

The weather

‍

• The time factor is also of great importance in the success of a dialogue. “The necessary time must be given to each stage, i.e. pre-meditation and the meeting for dialogue.”

During the “Feminisms in Dialogue” mediation, the pre-meditation session lasted from 2 hours 30 to 3 hours. Then, the dialogue meetings took place over two days, with planning for the day allowing the conflict to be addressed in several ways.

“It takes time for changes to take place, to be able to want a dialogue, to cultivate an open mind and to question yourself. Rather than setting a rigid deadline, it is better to adopt a personal rhythm and adapt to that of the interlocutor in the dialogue.”

‍

‍

How to prepare for dialogue 

‍

Nobody has the truth, but a truth

‍

• According to the professor, to start a dialogue, it is necessary to start by decentering. “First of all, we must recognize that we see the world through glasses, whether cultural, social, economic or otherwise,” she explains. We don't have the absolute truth, but at best, we do have some of our truth.”

‍

This decentralization will not happen all at once, but rather gradually. As a first step towards openness, mediation can be initiated by connecting with cultural and artistic productions. “Whether it's reading a novel, watching a movie, or listening to music, no matter what type of art resonates with you, it's a way to broaden your horizons by exploring the emotional dimensions of others.”

‍

Reviewing expectations

• “The fact that we are ready to talk does not mean that the other person is also ready to talk. If we rush too soon, it won't work, and it will only increase our mutual frustration,” she explains.

‍

Waiting for the other person to join us is essential because we don't all have the same pace. “People get together eventually, but that takes time. Time to find the right words, to avoid causing injuries.”

‍

“We are talking”

‍

• The key here is to share your emotions, because that's how empathy is born. It's about getting out of the persuasion approach at all costs and instead getting people to not judge, to be vulnerable.

‍

“That means you don't want to hurt the other person; you don't want to get hurt either. It's about creating a situation where mutual respect allows you to express yourself sincerely and understand what the other person is feeling or saying.”

With the help of allies, we can really go beyond judgment to address underlying emotions. “What are we afraid of? What are we worried about? What hurts us? What are we worried about? It is by exploring these emotional aspects that we can hope to create a genuine dialogue and understand each other's perspectives.”

M^Me Vatz Laaroussi also proposes an artistic expression exercise using the correspondence formula and in which each individual is invited to write a letter to a person from the opposite group.

In the Support guide for action-mediation research, she draws up a plan for this type of letter: “1. Introduce yourself; 2. Explain how you feel misunderstanding, tensions, or conflicts in the relationship; 3. Express emotions regarding these tensions and conflicts; 4. Conclude by proposing possible strategies to bring the parties together.”

“Writing brings a significant change to our expression, compared to oral communication. Emotions, especially anger, are expressed differently, and thinking about the words used in writing is central,” she explains.

The objective is to realize that “we share the same emotions, in order to be able to create empathy.”

“Empathy is not about saying, “I love the other person” or “The other person is right in every way,” but about recognizing that I can understand the other person's emotions.”

“It's obvious that empathy cannot always be achieved. However, even in their absence, the expression of emotions can at least lead to listening and respecting what the other person has to say.”

‍

We are capable of more than violence

‍

In the current political context, which is increasingly polarized and dark, Michèle Vatz Laaroussi, like Louis Audet-Gosselin, is convinced that “we must continue to believe in the possibility of dialogue.” “It is essential to maintain our faith in our ability to choose alternatives to destruction, aggression and violence,” she adds.

Reflecting on the global situation that prevails today, the professor notes the following: “We live in a world where violence seems to be spreading, where conflicts are increasing. It is therefore a good time to promote and start dialogues. You don't have to be afraid to want to change things, even if it's just on a small scale.”