At a dinner recently, my flatmate asked me what I find more important: equality or freedom. I stopped for a second and found myself unable to answer. Later while I was lying in bed, I was still thinking about the question. My roommate meant it as a semi-serious query, one that would open up a nice conversation. However, I slowly realized that the question is a lot more complicated than my friend meant it to be. What your priority is, freedom or equality, can be loosely translated into your political beliefs: liberalism or socialism. Rather than a fun question to discuss over some pizza and beer, I was suddenly grappled with a question about my core values. Consequently, the answer would determine my entire political belief, right?

So, equality or freedom? I have just finished reading Strangers in their own land by Arlie Hochschild, and one of her conclusions is that we are dependent on each other. Red states need blue states as much as the other way around. Conservatives need socialists and socialists need conservatives. If we take freedom as the core value of the right and equality as the core value on the left and we believe Hochschild’s conclusion, the two cannot be mutually exclusive. So, is it at all fair to frame the two as a trade-off?

The scholars are divided (which is not really surprising, everything is a contested concept in political science). The obvious logic is that, following a more socialist/communist structure of society, people will be more equal, but less free. Whereas, in a society where humans are completely free, inequality is part of the deal, the natural state of humanity is inequality. And in most societies we can find some sort of balance between this trade-off. However, if you dive a little deeper than this simple framework of the two concepts, the two terms are not as mutually exclusive as they may seem. Classical liberalism does not advocate for inequalities within societies. Rather, they believe in equal opportunities and they see them as one of the things that will lead to the freedom they treasure so much. As long as the inequalities have a valid explanation, e.g. people are simply less talented or they don’t work as hard as others, the inequalities seem acceptable. And perhaps one cannot speak of inequalities anymore, because everyone started out from an equal point. If anything, are we truly free if we do not have these equal opportunities? There is of course an argument that creating equal opportunities is diminishing our freedom. For example, in order to create equal opportunities we are not allowed to discriminate people. Strictly speaking, the freedom to be racist is taken from you, but are these really freedoms we want to protect?

So how does this fit into the socialism vs. liberalism debate? Perhaps Arlie Hochschild was right, they need each other in order to survive. Recently, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who said that socialism is always looking for someone to blame, which begs the question: does socialism need inequality to be of substance? Of course this sounds quite extreme, and does not do socialism justice, but it is an interesting thought to follow. As long as inequalities exist within our society, there will be political parties that will want to diminish these inequalities. What happens when these inequalities are completely gone? Perhaps it is a thought too utopian to be worth to follow. However, that my friend asked what socialisms end-game is, is not entirely unjustified.

Maybe the only answer I can give my roommate the next time she asks me if I prefer equality or freedom is that she is asking the wrong question. A more equal society is one that is also more free. Socialism and liberalism are not polar opposites, they feed into each other. They have to do so, because they both exist within our society. And maybe framing the political spectrum into two words at all (left/right, freedom/equality, liberalism/socialism) does not do us humans justice. If anything, it is only useful to polarize and to give me a little (political) identity crisis while I was trying to enjoy some pizza and beer.

I wrote this for the magazine of my study association and thought it might be nice to share it here as well. 

When we hear the word ‘community’ our minds wander to communities we are a part of ourselves. We are students at the University of Amsterdam, we are Political Scientists, we are part of a study association and so on. Often, communities can give us a sense of identity and belonging. People connect with one another and find similarities that bring them closer together. International students may find a sense of home in a community of students that also come from afar, and the same might be true for communities of Dutch students. While communities have numerous positive aspects, they do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. In this article, I am exploring the negative side of communities and I question if we should be forming communities or groups at all.

First of all, communities often lead to separation of groups. This may sound contradictory, but let me explain. It is visible on a small scale in our own beloved university: international students and Dutch students rarely mingle. As a Dutch student who grew up in Germany, I believe I fall in between the groups of international students and Dutch ones, which allows me to look at the two groups more objectively. Since international students have another layer that comes with studying: namely moving away from the country they grew up in, their experiences differ from Dutch students. It is normal that they form clusters, international students can recognize certain experiences that nationals might not have had (yet). Furthermore, the language barrier is present. It is always easier to speak in your native tongue. It seems logical that there is a clear distinction between internationals and Dutch students, however, this creates a rift within the university. Dutch students are not a part of international groups and vice versa. Consequently, dialogue between the two groups starts to diminish and the two groups are living alongside each other, rather than with one another.

This separation of groups leads to polarisation, which is my second point. While polarization of international and national students in a university provide a good example to illustrate my point, the urgency of the problem is not visible. Who cares that internationals and Dutch people do not mingle, right? Well, this polarization that communities bring about, is also visible in the rest of the world. It is easier to stick to the people that understand us, and that have similar experiences and similar opinions on certain matters. It feels comfortable and takes less effort. If we both believe that we should close our borders and put fences up, or if we both believe that climate change should be taken seriously, conversations will flow more easily. Instead of a heavy debate, we can just agree with each other. The community then becomes an echo chamber in which we find comfort, but lose any critique on our views or beliefs.  Forming groups can thus seclude us to our own opinions and in this we might become strangers to each other. This sense of alienation seep through the larger community that we are part of, namely being citizens and this will then cease to exist; solidarity is lost. This claim needs some nuance of course. Communities are not the sole reason that polarization exists in modern democracies. Economic inequality and a sense of social injustice are more likely to be the root of polarization. However, the feeling that we are being treated unjustly is fuelled if we surround ourselves with people who are of the same opinion. If we constantly agree with each other, we will also constantly think that we are right.

Lastly, by forming groups we are likely to fall into ‘identity politics’. This means that we prioritize issues that relate to our identity, which can lead to several problems. As a woman we would want a president to be a woman as well, but this is then the only aspect we focus on. Instead of the actual skills needed to be president, we thus only focus on gender. Communities are often based on aspects of our identity, such as our sexual orientation, race or gender which provides thus a good base to practice these identity politics that can be harmful.

For a democracy to maintain healthy it is of importance that the world becomes less polarized and issues are looked at separately from our identities. Forming communities is not helping these two issues, rather it worsens them. The question remains if the benefits of communities, which I am not denying exist, outweigh the negative consequences of polarization. I argue that this is true: we lose our individuality and critical thinking in groups, however this does not mean that communities should cease to exist. Mainly, because this is an impossible task to enforce in a society filled with humans that naturally form groups and are social animals. A more feasible solution and also crucial solution is that conversations do not disappear. We need to live with each other, not next to each other and dialogue is a necessity in order to do this. So, next time you are standing at a Borrel in café de Havelaar and you hear some Dutch next to you, engage in a conversation, rather than looking for your international friends. And who knows, you might find a whole new community!

A new year has started, even more so, a new decade has started! We are once again entering the 20s. If these will be filled with jazz and parties like the ones a hundred years ago will be rather unlikely, but one thing is sure, like every year, this decade was embraced ‘warmly’ with a a lot of fireworks and with it a lot of injuries.

I never understand why such a dangerous and polluting thing as fireworks is still tolerated. In the Netherlands an entire building has been burnt down this year; how is that a good start of th year? I have never liked, and have always been scared of fireworks, but as a lot of people shout this time a year: it is tradition! As I come from the Netherlands I know the case in the Netherlands and am unsure how it is for other countries, but Dutch people cling on  to their traditions as if they are their newborn babies. This is not only visible when the discussion of fireworks pops up, but also around the fifth of December, when the discussion surrounding ‘black pete’ arises and captures the entire country. It seems as if inflexibility lies in the nature of the Dutch. If ‘black pete’ is hurting some people than why can’t we change it? I, as a white person, have nothing to say about the feelings of a person of colour, and if I am doing something that is hurtful than why shouldn’t I change it? The alternative is more logical and does not inconvenience me anyway. Now, a day that is meant to be wholesome and peaceful is dominated by violent protest, because people cannot accept that sometimes, traditions change.

The same is true for fireworks. It has become more than clear that people are not careful with them. How much more do we need to illegalize it? It is not as if fireworks will disappear completely, but we can utilize the Australian idea, and host a firework show. (Although I find it peculiar that even though the entire countries’ bushes are filled with a raging fire, they still continue with this firework show, but I guess the tradition is also in Australia too important to ignore.)

I have often heard people say that even when you illegalize fireworks they will still exist and although I do not disagree with that statement it is important to speak about the scale  of it all. If we illegalize fireworks, the amount of people hurt from said fireworks will be a lot less and if someone uses fireworks and is hurt by it, they can be punished and understand the consequences of possessing fireworks. If anything, it is a way to cash some extra money by fining the people who do have and light firework. The current discussion and the shifting opinion of many politicians obviously illustrates that the matter is moving into the right direction, however, I fail to understand why everyone is so hestitant. Perhaps I am being unempathetic because I do not like fireworks myself, but I do not understand who can still oppose the illegalization of them. Especially if the only argument is that it is tradition as it a Chinese tradition to scare away evil spirits. The Dutch do not even share the same New Year’s as the Chinese and they are not a particulary spiritual nation.

Sadly, I do not think that 2021 will be introduced in a different manner than 2020, but one can hope. (Because I am also so done with the fireworks that sound like bombs going of in my neighbourhood all year around at three in the morning)

Happy new year! Happy new decade!

Of to a rusty start.