An expert on counteracting hate speech and executive director of Project Over Zero, Brown drew from her experiences working with peace activists in Kenya during her Oct. 23 talk.
By Oliver Fischer ’19
Communications can be used as a tool for both peace and violence, but when polarization and identity politics become central to a discussion, it more often leads to violence.
That is the message that Rachel Brown, an expert on counteracting hate speech, violence prevention and civic engagement, shared with the Elon community gathered in Yeager Recital Hall on Tuesday, Oct. 23. Brown is also the executive director of Project Over Zero, which aims to prevent divisions in societies. Brown also delivered a talk on “Female Leadership in Civil Discourse” in Whitley Auditorium on Monday, Oct. 22, during her visit to Elon.
Brown became interested in the topic of defusing hate after she spent four years in Kenya and met with local peace activists trying to push back against the violence surrounding the 2007 general elections. But these activists did not talk about weapons with Brown. “They talked about the mobile phone,” Brown said. “This was a surprise to me.”
Text messages were used to spread misinformation and organize attacks, which caught local peace activists off guard. “They were used as a tool of violence,” Brown said.
The language used in those messages pressured people into forwarding them. Brown said she wanted to use the same tactics to fight these fear-mongering messages. “Instead of waiting until the fear starts to take hold and spread, we need to build our connections faster,” Brown said.
Another element that characterized the Kenyan elections was its emphasis on tribes and identities. Brown said she has observed a similar trend in the US. “Rather than debating about ideas and disagreeing about ideas, we’ve moved to disagreeing and debating about identity,” Brown said. “So not ‘I don’t like the thing you said but I don’t like who you are,’” she said.
This is problematic because it changes a discussion into something closer to sports teams competing with each other and leads to large division on issues, she said.
“We are more polarized based on identity and how good we feel about our group, versus how bad we feel about the other group,” Brown said. In this state of communications, it is hard to move forward on issues and find common ground because there can only be one winner. “When we start to play team sports, it becomes zero-sum,” she said.
Hate speech is the type of speech that increases the risk that a group will participate in or condone violence, Brown noted. Both hate speech and polarization depend on the creation of an “us” and a “them.” There are several patterns that define those two sides.
The group of “them” is often portrayed as being threatening, Brown said. This leads to justifying self-defense, which in turn can lead to violence. “Them” is also described as guilty. “That an entire group is guilty for the actions of one, starts to create the argument that they deserve punishment,” Brown said.
Scapegoating involves blaming groups for all of the woes and they are often dehumanized in the process. Brown used the example of Jews being compared to vermin during the Holocaust. “Think of many examples of dehumanizing language that we have today and it’s very concerning,” Brown said.
The “us” on the other hand is portrayed as moral and victims in need of protection, she said. “This prays on empathy,” Brown said. “There are often narratives that say ‘don’t we want to protect our women and children from that other.’” Violence is often portrayed as the only option in these situations. “There are strong pressures that get created to participate in violence or condone it,” Brown said.
Brown said it is important to be aware of these patterns because they help us understand how societies move in these unfavorable directions revolving around hate. But there are ways to get away from the “us vs. them” mentality. Speech and rhetoric that describes what is normal in a society is one way. “Normal, and what’s perceived as normal, is extremely powerful,” Brown said.
Avoiding shaming is another way. Shaming people often forces them into a defensive posture. “It doesn’t leave room for change or growth,” Brown said.
Brown closed her speech by reminding the audience to not only be against something, but also picture what peace looks like. “I think it’s really important when we talk about what we’re against, we also talk about what we are for,” Brown said. “To me one of the most important lessons is to figure out what being for something looks like in this world of division and violence.”