Hi,

This week, I’ve been going through members’ illuminating and very helpful responses to my question last week on the topic of

One made me think again about I have long felt that identity politics gets a bad rap. To me, it makes sense for people to organise themselves politically along the lines of what singles them out for unequal treatment by those in power. I think the hammering that identity politics receives is a counter-revolutionary tool, intended to dismiss organised attempts to secure rights on the basis of identity. 

But here’s what Doug said: "I think the fundamental communication and conversion tool of the Left has been abandoned by most millennials: that of positive reinforcement, as opposed to criticism and righteous indignation. We are tired of capitulation, yes, but the policy of so-called canceling and intolerance toward the intolerant has been shown time and time again to calcify the Far Right into fascism. Jehovah’s Witnesses are sent door to door not to convert you but to experience rejection from you, further entrenching them into the cult when they return." [Emphasis my own.]

This was an argument I had heard before until the italicised part. As for the far-right factions, yes, it’s unlikely their convictions were triggered en masse by people arguing politely and positively for the rights of people of colour. One of the frequent criticisms of identity politics is that it can feel exclusionary and push people into extreme positions. In other words, when people feel attacked because it’s assumed they are on the wrong side, they’re more likely to go on and join the wrong side. In all my research, I have found no evidence for this. But I do think there’s something to the view that rejection reinforces resentment. Rejection can be a potent recruiting tool - not least for the far-right.

Now, I don’t quite agree that Jehovah’s Witnesses are sent to knock on doors just for the purpose of facing rejection. I believe that some faith groups believe that proselytising is their duty: they are trying to help their fellow man. But I do think there is something in Doug’s point that rejection - or at least a certain type of rejection: dismissive, haughty or insulting - does in fact push people further away.

I think we all belong (sort of) in cults. It doesn’t have to be a pejorative term. To varying degrees, we all find it hard to break patterns of behaviour and ways of thinking in which we have been socialised. But it’s important to be open to questions, and to changing our beliefs when they are challenged credibly. But if such challenges assume we are already irrevocably lost and incapable of change, then yes, of course we’re unlikely to keep an open mind. 

So a new ask, to add to the one I made last week: do you have any examples of times when you think you would have been open to changing your mind, but the way you were approached felt off-putting? And vice versa: are there instances when your position changed unexpectedly after an encounter with a disarming proselytiser? 

Let me know in the contributions under here, or email me at nesrine@thecorrespondent.com.

Until next week.

Would you like this newsletter straight in your inbox? Subscribe to my weekly newsletter and stay up to date on my Better Politics beat Subscribe now!