Polarization and Agency in the Modern Age: The Age of AI, Politics, and the Moral and Ethical Consciousness of Our Choices

I recently had the conversation in one of my classes around the discourse of AI, and specifically, how we as students utilize AI in school. I had my own take on how this conversation had went, as well as, how it continues to circulate through our age…

My professor, the one leading this conversation, had asked the 15 of us taking the class, all well versed in reading, writing and comprehension—as well as all humanities majors—how we would like to utilize AI in this course. Mind you, the course’s theme is around the Anthropocene, and it is a research study class, so we are required to do a lot of deep diving into our own hypothesis and also a lot of analyzing, gathering data, drawing our own narratives as well as those circulating around it already, the whole shebang . The irony is this: the basis of this class follows environmental phenomenon caused by people, so AI, something known to be environmentally damaging, and the use of it for the work of this class, would be a huge contradiction in itself. The question sparked an interesting conversation around this irony though, being that AI—something inevitable in most every browser and web search—should be rejected and avoided at all costs. At least, that was the voice of one of my fellow classmates. I had a different take… And then at the end of this class, the work will be published, but together what of this published work is made up authentically, versus with the help of AI.

Already, AI has become an extremely accessible across all browsers, even running browsers strictly with AI being the entire domain that the browser runs through. Therefore, the access and even the exposure to AI, at this point in time, is inevitable, also making the matter of overall consumption not as important as the way in which we choose to consume it. Rather, how we choose to utilize it? Because truthfully, I do think AI is helpful in leading critical thinking, finding words we wish to elaborate outside of thought, helping find sources or input on matters where we don’t know where to start. The problem then becomes not a matter of usage alone, but how we use it. This “utility”, as Sam .. refers to it, is not going anywhere, and based on our patterns historically with the development of technology, it is likely not something that an entire population can agree to reject or ignore either. Not to mention, the ways in which educational systems engage their students in AI throughout everyday tasks, starting the consumption of AI in young people as a dependency rather than a source for better learning experience and understanding of information without completely succeeding all access to them, is a part of reality now and an addiction that will take lots of application and practice in order to dismantle. Taken altogether, the expectation to either utilize it to it’s fullest extent and extract all resources necessary so the user doesn’t have to, versus the expectation to drop it within an instant, especially after becoming accustomed to the accessibility and comfort, are two polarizations worth being analyzed a little better. And my point here is not just AI, but how can we fight the far leaning beliefs, opinions, and thoughts of those who believe there is no in-between, no middle ground, no further conversation beyond the bounds of their confinement?

While saying that may be an also very far fetched argument, and still and argument—bearing it’s own judgements—I argue that there must be more space for curiosity and consideration before there becomes such polarizations that lead us to such a gap of misalignment and arrogance. This is most notably seen through politics, through economy, through several different socialist movements, and even through spirituality. It becomes less of a conversation, and more of an debate, a determination of who is right versus who is wrong, without ever considering that both sides might have much more in common than considered. I will also argue that the most fundamental difference between more serious matters is to be determined by a moral and ethical code.

Since all things—opinions, beliefs, behaviors, function on the grounds of a moral and ethical reasoning, there almost in no case stands a justification for the starting of a war, the oppression of a race, class, gender, nation-state. This is something that remains one of the bigger indifferences in society, but an issue that reflects one’s education and upbringing more than anything, almost cancelling out the grounds for a justifiable opinion at all. Charged statement, but a truth that many aren’t willing to admit, which is that education plays the most important role in creating a position or argument. Education also remains the most vital, underfunded, and inaccessible outlier for all of humanity. Without access to education, and education not polarized by government, state, a polarization in teachings whatsoever, you are guaranteed to not have a full-rounded understanding of most things. It is also important to note that this doesn’t come from unequal access alone, but rather generations of socioeconomic status, disproportionate and discriminatory funding, exclusionary disciplines, systemic racism, gentrification. The problem remains today, and is extremely traceable to the political and social environment we are in in the United States. I’d even argue a more totalitarianism angle that is being pushed by our head of the country, but that might be a little extreme… All I am saying, suggesting maybe, is to look into Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, and you might see where I am coming from. But again, this is essentially what I am arguing here, with the harm in being so polarized that it creates an even larger gap than the ones we are currently living through today. Will we go into another war tomorrow just because our illogical and only once (most probably) considered thoughts are thinking that is the right move? Or are we actually considering our decisions and every angle of them, all limitations, all impacts, before coming to a well thought out and grounded decision.

What happens when the failure isn’t so abstract though? When you are the only person in the room where nobody had the framework, the language, the moral vocabulary to do the right thing? But the point isn’t so much the story here, so much as what it demonstrates. The absence of moral, ethical, even legal education isn’t a policy problem in the distance because it shows up in the room, between people who know each other, and it produces a silence, and a silence is its own form of polarization. This becomes a matter of unequal distribution, which then allows for the necessary steps of agency to also be required at different levels. And law aside, there are no moral or ethical teaching for most educational upbringings either. So what is to be done then about the agency required in the sense or moral and ethical choice making? There is most definitely a shortage of policy, media, any representation for those lacking awareness and education on all things that require change. Another problem is that there is no responsibility taken, which is what polarized belief not only stands on but also thrives on, further creating more barriers and heavily charged positions. There is a severe lack of understanding, and understanding on any polarized belief and the limitations surrounding it, where the optimal solution then becomes very unrealistic and far-fetched for anyone else who might think otherwise.

This also reminds me of a recent find and worm hole I got myself into, the work of Catherine Liu, professor of Film and Media Studies here at UCI, but also author of an up and coming book called “Traumatized: The Politics of Public Suffering”. The book is not out yet, but I have stumbled across and watched almost every interview she is in now, where she explores the topic a little bit more, and I found it so pertinent to this sense of polarization as well, which is also a topic she seems to work with and know quite well. A lot of what she argues trauma to be is the “pass key to authenticity” or even saying that the thing that happened to you grants you a specific moral credibility. I find this true in many cases, especially present, but it actually made me wonder the ways in which we might dismantle the entire phenomenon. As she also points out though, the trauma that is being used to broadcast political alignment, social media attraction, legitimacy, is all hallowed out because it doesn’t constitute an argument alone. The idea of such a polarization and posting or even monetization of that is what becomes dangerous because it shuts down the conversation instead of opening it. Perhaps like an ‘oh this happened, and this is what is gonna happen because it’s the only way we move on from it’ kind of representation of traumatic events, rather than an understanding, an acknowledgement of the limitations of it, and also the progressive ways in which there can be a collective awareness going forward and more conversation surrounding uncomfortable and traumatic experiences for people.

I don’t necessarily align with the argument in its entirety because I do think that there is an awareness that needs to come when traumatic events happen as a form of educating and making aware to those who aren’t, the dangers of such events. But overall, I do think the social gain and specifically the monetization of traumatic events is what sets my own differences apart from her. Taken from her as well, she argues that keeping trauma private, specifically sexual violence, when broadcasted in inappropriate ways, can be more harmful than meaningful to the public. Liu’s entire example responds to this idea that frameworks that are to be shared, should also be those that we can utilize for examination of structural production of them and the domestic violence, legal, social, and institutional frameworks that stand behind them as well. I couldn’t agree with her argument more, minus the limitations that come with them; exploitation of trauma is more often the effect of trauma being told in those other ways.

I think this brings me to the main part of my point here: the crossover between moral and ethics amidst matters that are so dire, and how this all coincides with this idea of polarization and becoming so extremely set on one particular subject. On top of that, the limitations and circumstances that place every individual in a different position to understand the subject. It almost feels like there is no winning here, and the fact that everyone comes from a different places and backgrounds only makes the agency aspect less ideal for one to even pursue. That the another polarization, and popular assumption or belief that a lot of people have. It is like accepting the world’s demise due to environmental collapse. But the thing is, you don’t need to be a vegan, or stop using plastic, or stop driving to work, or consuming so many different things. It goes like the saying, “eat whatever you like, but in moderation”. There comes a point to when one’s consumption becomes harmful. And no, everyone doesn’t come from the same place in this case, in fact, there are many wealthy individuals who’s carbon footprint isn’t as big as those who come from the same economic and financial background. The idea is to adjust to the best of our abilities what we can, given our financial, geographical, social situation. And given we live in a pretty fucked up world, it makes sense for this to come from public discourse through media believe it or not. Our modernity is at a point of electronic devices and utilizing a server to think and act for us now, so we can either utilize these resources to our advantage, or continue to exploit them for our own capital gain in a world that is crumbling beneath us. Again, it’s a tough and blunt way to put it, but from all of my own readings, historical and present, it is our most likely option for agency.

Now, I understand the polarization behind these claims, and someone reading might find this to be its own form of polarization, but a collective curiosity and consideration is something I do think one needs to have in order to constructively navigate these current issues at hand. There will be no completely ethical or moral answer in the end, but it does matter whether not we can learn and reflect on the things that require us to make small changes to altogether lead a greater collective understanding or less gap between such extreme.