On a polarised globe: The tension between ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’
At the time of writing this editorial contribution about interdisciplinary ethics, the globe seems extraordinarily fragmented. It would almost seem like the ideals of reconciling diversity, as for example expressed by Jürgen Habermas’ ‘postnational constellation’, increasingly appear as a type of a pipe dream (Bremmer 2025). The ‘postnational constellation’ (Habermas 2001:58–112; cf. Habermas 2017) with the hyphen purposefully omitted between ‘post’ and ‘national’, implies a state of being in which ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ exist in a creative tension. This implies that diversity is not a threat to particularity (and vice versa). In 2017, almost two decades after his first work on the postnational constellation, Habermas (2017) writes:
Our era is marked by a growing mismatch between a world society that is becoming increasing interdependent at the systemic level and a world of states that remains fragmented … Above all, globalised markets make use of accelerated digital communication to create ever-denser networks and to bring these collective actors into completely new kinds of dependencies. In view of the politically undesirable side effects of systemic integration, a need for steering arises, which single nation-states are increasingly unable to cope with. Politicians and citizens sense this loss of political decision-making power and, in a psychologically understandable [sic] but paradoxical defensive reaction, cling even more firmly to the nation-state and its borders, which have long since become porous. (pp. 3–4)
It seems the ‘idea’ of the United States (US), namely ‘E pluribus unum’ [our of one, many] had far greater influence than the rest of the world had wanted, because the moment that idea, in the form of a second Donald Trump presidency, started to erode1, a new global order started emerging. Or maybe the idea of liberal democracy was a temporary reaction to the horrors of world wars and genocides of the 20th century, and the moment humanity’s ‘hard look in the mirror’ dissipated, so also our awareness of our responsibility towards each other and our greater environment faded. As Ian Bremmer (2025) has stated in his contribution about a polarised world:
[… C]itizens in advanced democracies concluded that the globalist values their leaders and elites had been promoting no longer worked in their favour [sic]. Rising inequality, demographic shifts, and technological disruption have eroded trust in democratic institutions and reduced these nations’ capacity for global leadership. Nowhere has this been more consequential than in the still-indispensable nation, the United States, where President Donald Trump has both fed and profited from this anti-globalist, anti-establishment surge. (n.p.)
The influence of the polarisation in the US has extended beyond its own borders, as other nations are increasingly drawn into ‘America first’. Together with a neo-colonialism, a dysfunctional ecosystem of information (disinformation and unregulated social media platforms) has led to the creation of so-called, ‘echo chambers’, where one’s own opinion is echoed back to you and reinforced by virtue of only being exposed to similar arguments and sentiments. In such a climate, dialogue is increasingly becoming an alien in the global household. As Bremmer (2025) remarks about the US: ‘Americans increasingly don’t engage with other at all’.
In 2019, I wrote an article about reconciling diversity, linked specifically to how one redresses the past, and does justice in the present (cf. Van Wyk 2019). In the contribution I argued that:
Injustices of the past have come knocking on the door of the present: debates rage in many sectors about the effects of colonialism, racism, slavery and patriarchy … Miroslav Volf (2006:11) described this as a summons to remember. This summons has led to an explosion of separate but related discussions that connect a range of issues: identity and diversity, borders and hospitality, transformation and justice …
In my opinion, what is currently happening is that this is being regarded as a ‘false narrative’ about how bad things were in the past, and systematically, replaced by a narrative about how ‘good things were in the past’. The exponents of this ‘new’ narrative probably regarded protests about equality, discrimination, injustice and transformation as a coercive attempt to rewrite the past, and now they simply have the opportunity to set things right. Of course, I am speculating. This is what happens in a reality where dialogue ceases to exist.
In this context I want to turn to an argument for why all of the above implies that interdisciplinary ethics or a reconciling diversity with regard to negotiating common ground on what is regarded as ‘morally valuable’, is existentially important.
Moral pluralism and interdisciplinary ethics
As a Christian theologian, I am no stranger to moral diversity. Bioethics (euthanasia, abortion), ethics of human sexuality (sexual orientation and importance awarded to heterosexual marriage) and debates about the justification of war and or violence are just some of the ethical issues that have (and has) the potential to tear Christian faith communities apart. The question in such an environment is: How do you debate with someone or have a dialogue with someone who might spend a lifetime advocating for something that you might spend a lifetime opposing?
In her work on moral pluralism, Darlene Fozard Weaver (2020) indicated that moral diversity is a fact:
[L]iving alongside one another requires us to navigate responses to our own and others’ moral failures, to balance humility with compassionate fraternal correction, punishment and forgiveness, tolerance and prophetic denunciation. (Fozard Weaver 2020:29)
Navigation of responses and balancing humility. It could be stated that these are two characteristics of dialogue, where one talks with each other and listens to each other. It was the German theologian Jürgen Moltman (2008:287) who described ‘truth’ as ‘unhindered dialogue’, which is domination-free, is characterised by community and freedom and inherently accepts the value of mutual respect and reciprocal participation. In this regard, it could be argued that truth is not to be found in the echo-chamber, or in the polarised space where the other is always against you. Truth is to be found in unhindered dialogue, which is undergirded by a shared value system – hence the importance of crossing boundaries when it comes to ethics, which is inherently the philosophical reflection on what is regarded as ‘moral’. In this way, ‘dialogue’ is dependent on a boundary-crossing ethics.
For a ‘boundary crossing ethics’ (my interpretation of interdisciplinary ethics) to take place, one could lean on Fozard Weaver’s idea of moral pluralism, which recognises the reality of moral diversity, and appreciates it as something to be respected and protected (Fozard Weaver 2020:28). There are certain conditions for ‘moral pluralism’ (might one say, dialogue?): (1) respect for human dignity, (2) the acknowledgement of one another’s moral agency, (3) accepting joint responsibility for shaping the common good, and (4) the self-acknowledgement that each one of us is capable of evil. In a reality where echo chambers serve to reinforce one’s own idea of identity and sovereignty, a mutual agreement on the moral agency (i.e., the ability of one another’s agency to act as a moral agent) might seem near impossible. Interdisciplinary ethics (or transdisciplinary ethics, for that matter) could provide a way to negotiate towards the foundation of a dialogue: the search for common ground.
The interdisciplinary ethics project at its core acknowledges that there are different, collaborative paths to knowledge and truth. From the recesses of my memory comes a recollection from my second year philosophy-theology class about how we can never say ‘all swans are white’, because we cannot be everywhere to ‘verify’ it. This was the introduction to the realisation that truth comes not only from our sensory perception but also from interaction (encounters) and experience. The complexity of our age and the developing challenges we have, such as climate change, poverty and the development of artificial intelligence (AI), necessitate multiple perspectives, and this inherently implies constant navigation and dialogue, as we find ourselves exposed to different approaches and methodologies. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ethics is a statement about being committed to inclusivity and to learning together, which in itself is a strong statement against fragmentation. In this regard, interdisciplinary ethics has the potential to provide a powerful contra-narrative to the prevailing narrative of polarisation.
References
Bremmer, I., 2025, Welcome to a world defined by polarisation, instability and disruption, Carnegie Cooperation of New York, viewed 30 March 2025, from https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/welcome-to-a-world-defined-by-polarization-instability-and-disruption/.
Fozard Weaver, D., 2020, ‘Christian formation and moral pluralism’, Studies in Christian Ethics 33(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946819884551
Habermas, J., 2001, The postnational constellation. Political essays, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Habermas, J., 2017, ‘An exploration of the meaning of transnationalisation of democracy, using the example of the European Union’, in P. Deutscher & C. Lafont (eds.), Critical theory in critical times. Transforming the global political and economic order, pp. 1–18, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Moltman, J., 2008, A broad place, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Van Wyk, T., 2019, ‘Redressing the past, doing justice in the present: Necessary paradoxes’, HTS Theological Studies 75(4), a5625. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i4.5625
Volf, M., 2006, The end of memory. Remembering rightly in a violent world, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapid, MI.
Footnote
1. ‘The United States is at war with itself’ (Bremmer 2025:n.p.)
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
