The author Luís Ganhão analyzes the phenomenon of growing polarization in contemporary society, arguing that we live in times when everything tends to be seen in binary terms: black or white, for or against, good or bad. According to the article, doubt has become suspicious, nuance is confused with timidity, and whoever dares to ask whether things are really that simple risks being immediately placed in the opposing camp.
The article highlights that this phenomenon manifests itself in various contexts, including politics, social media, and everyday conversations, but perhaps it is in international relations that it reveals itself most alarmingly. The author argues that diplomacy has always been based on a fundamental constatation: States are neither eternal friends nor eternal enemies, they have interests that sometimes force them to talk even when there is no sympathy or agreement.
Ganhão warns of a new logic that seems to have taken hold, in which talking to the adversary is seen as a sign of weakness, seeking a negotiated outcome may be interpreted as a concession, and defending a compromise is all too often accused of being equidistant. The author emphasizes that understanding is not excusing, explaining is not justifying, and conversing is not capitulating, arguing that one can hold someone responsible for a war and still talk to them to try to end it.
The article concludes that we live in times without shades, in which complexity is confused with relativism, prudence with cowardice, and diplomacy with betrayal. The author argues that peace is rarely made between friends and calls for the recovery of the ability to see the many colors that exist between two trenches, warning that when shades disappear, the space for dialogue disappears as well.
