By
Gabrielle Rifkind
Naz Shah demonstrated extraordinary emotional intelligence when she was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme this week. She did something politicians seldom do - she admitted she was wrong, and in her words, she was ‘ignorant’. Compare this with Ken Livingstone’s words of defiance after he stated that Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”. True to character, Livingstone refused to apologise and stubbornly refused to reconsider his words. Whether or not his behavior was antisemitic is controversial, but his behavior was insensitive and perhaps was more shaped by male hubris and his determination to be right than antisemitism.
Are these different responses in the face of conflict good examples as to how men and women behave differently? In times of turmoil, women tend to be more practical and less testosterone driven. The proximate role of testosterone in aggression is convincingly demonstrated; already higher in men, testosterone tends to rise in conflictual situations and influences the proclivity to violent escalation. In experimental war games, men exhibit overconfidence about their expectations of success significantly more than women. Male leaders also demonstrate more reluctance to compromise than their female counterparts. Masculine approaches to conflict are more likely to be associated with competitiveness, dominance and territoriality. In contrast, women are widely believed to be less competitive and less belligerent, focused instead on interdependence, tolerance and egalitarianism.
Recently, the antisemitism debate in the Labour Party became an example of where the woman was able to be reflective and to admit her errors, whereas the man steadfastly defended his actions, even as the world objected. In the wake of the debacle, Shah demonstrated an eloquence, an ability to look inwards and acknowledge her faults in order to credibly take responsibility for harm she had caused, the equivalent of which we are yet to see from the other party to the controversy, Livingstone. She demonstrated the capacity to take full responsibility for her mistakes and apologize. This is a crucial step in the process of reconciliation and seems to be painfully lacking in much of our male-dominated politics.
Words like honor, pride, revenge, and glory are often attributed to male motivation. Arguably women are more driven by the desire to protect their families, a heightened capacity for empathy and the ability to get into the mind of the other. Their historical role as caregiver requires women to understand the minds of their children and hence develop a proclivity for empathy. As gender roles are redefined around parenting, with men more actively involved, the polarization of this gender division will doubtless be reduced.
There are dangers in caricaturing the gender issue as it is complex, but this example does seem to highlight the difference between how many men and women respond, both to offence, and to conflict. In her apology, Naz Shah demonstrated a capacity for empathy for a community whom she had previously attacked. Doing this took enormous courage, but also was a powerful example of how, if we immerse ourselves in the culture, values and life of the other, there is potential to act as a bridge maker. Shah’s words could do much to heal the wounds of earlier allegations of antisemitism. It will, however, require the Jewish community to show generosity and appreciation for her words and her attempted reconciliation. This will certainly happen in some quarters of the Jewish community, but in others there will be an urge to make an example of her, and there could be political capital in continuing to attach the anti-Semitic label to her. How much more politically mature to use this as an opportunity for reconciliation?
It would now require, on behalf of the Jewish community, gestures of reciprocal empathy and the ability not to turn every antisemitic statement into a personal slight. Such behaviour would include the capacity to be reflective, not merely repeating the history of the Jewish experience which has created so much insecurity and sensitivity to hurt. The profound and traumatic wounds of the Holocaust challenge the Jewish community to rise above the pain of our history. It challenges us, not always to look inwards to ourselves and to our own pain, but to find ways of building bridges with those who have also experienced the indignities and humiliation of racism on any scale. I yearned to hear members of the Jewish community, asked in the media whether the Labour party had displayed signs of antisemitism, to move beyond our own personal pain to identify with wider aspects of racism.
To elevate our thought processes from emotional responses to rational calculations demands a great deal of self-knowledge. Just as this is true in the micro minutiae of domestic relationships, so this is true in the public arena and on the international stage. It is so much easier when we have suffered pain, to seek retribution and to make the other side suffer in the same way we have. Our natural instinct is to hit back. There is some satisfaction in this, and in the short term, we find pleasure in our own ability to take control and inflict an equal or greater wound on the other. As a psychotherapist, I have observed divorcing couples more intent on afflicting a wound on the other than protecting their own best interests. There is some temporary excitement in revenge or retaliation for the hurt inflicted on a person who has caused us so much pain. It takes great self-discipline and self-awareness not to retaliate but to allow a more rational calculation to determine our responses. This is particularly difficult when, in the moment, we are driven by emotions and passions.
We need to embrace those who find the courage to apologise and change their positions, like Naz Shah. When people find the generosity of spirit to do this, the Jewish community needs to find ways to reciprocate. This will create the kind of emotional and political intelligence that is so needed, and is more likely to make people our friends and not our enemies.
Gabrielle Rifkind directs the Oxford Process for Oxford Research Group and is co-author of Fog of Peace: How to prevent war. I.B. Tauris 2016.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.