Illustration: People form a network.

Togetherness In The Time Interplay

Given the interconnectedness of our world today, as evident during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as other global conflicts, clinging to the "Us versus Them" perspective might offer temporary benefits for some. However, it fails to encompass the long-term consequences that cannot be contained to safeguard a select few, says our author and former president of Costa Rica.

As humans, we come into this world and are nurtured to embrace and embody various identities. Our regional, national or local affiliations become ingrained in us, alongside our identification with gender and race. We acquire the ability to recognize these aspects in others as well. We naturally integrate segments of history into our personal narratives.

In its ideal manifestation, human diversity resembles nature's biodiversity: it enhances societies like ecosystems, rendering them more resilient and aesthetically appealing.

Additionally, we absorb music preferences and sports affiliations, allowing them to shape not only our individuality but also our perceptions of others and the distinctions that set us apart. In its ideal manifestation, human diversity resembles nature's biodiversity: it enhances societies like ecosystems, rendering them more resilient and aesthetically appealing.

However, when these identities' boundaries are not suitably contextualized and framed with positive values, they can also give rise to the concept of "Us" versus "Them." These notions, rooted in gender, race, or culture, have repeatedly emerged throughout history, often serving to justify and perpetuate actions where lines have been drawn on maps and have dictated destinies for peoples and for generations. Such actions create imbalances, inequalities, and foster feelings of anger, resentment, guilt, and ultimately indifference as a means of avoiding the negative outcomes.

“I Am Because We Are”

We have seen it happen in several time periods of human history across the globe. Is this agonism a constant nature that cannot have other possible approaches?

An alternative perspective exists—one that strives to embrace identities with respect and dignity, without diminishing diversity but rather celebrating it. This alternative suggests a shared human identity rooted in common ground—a togetherness.

This stance can be linked to the concept of "ubuntu" found in the Zulu and Xhosa languages of South Africa, encapsulating the idea of "I am because we are." As articulated by Olu Ojedokun & Mary-Ann Ajayi, this ethical standpoint "affirms an organic wholeness of humanity, a unity realized in and through other people."

Illustration: Man thinking about families.
There is an alternative perspective to "us vs. them" that suggests a common human identity and celebrates diversity, illustration: Luciano Lozano / Ikon Images via picture alliance

Given the interconnectedness of our world and societies today, as evident during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the ramifications of environmental crises, climate change, global conflicts, and the nuclear threat, clinging to the "Us versus Them" perspective might offer temporary benefits for some. However, it fails to encompass the long-term consequences that cannot be contained to safeguard a selected few.

Within the concept of togetherness, action should extend beyond the immediate benefit of those encapsulated within the boundaries of their immediate identity. Instead, empathy should propel us to transcend these boundaries.

During my tenure in office, while advocating for Costa Rica's decarbonization plan, I initially held a fervent belief that decarbonization was a crucial pursuit, a genuine emotional catalyst for action, driven by my desire to secure a better future for my 10-year-old son. Don't misunderstand me—I still hold this belief, but my perspective has shifted.

Within the concept of togetherness, action should extend beyond the immediate benefit of those encapsulated within the boundaries of their immediate identity. Instead, empathy should propel us to transcend these boundaries.

I now perceive it through a different prism. I've come to understand that for other parents, who also cherish their children deeply, decarbonization might seem like a threat to their child's livelihood, particularly in contexts and countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels without a clear roadmap for transitioning.

So, what is the solution? In the short and medium term, a clash between the interests of exploiting and phasing out fossil fuels seems inevitable. However, in the grander scheme, we all share a common interest: ensuring a world that not only survives but thrives for the next generation. While the "Us versus Them" mindset often magnifies differences, we also have the capacity to adopt the broader framework of "I am because we are." The challenge of transitioning away from fossil fuels and developing viable alternatives isn't solely the responsibility of a specific group—it necessitates collaborative, transformative solutions that lead to win-win partnerships benefiting both people and the planet.

Traversed Common Ground

The common ground should be traversed with a positive understanding, fostering partnerships and trust, while also enabling the recognition of traits like narcissism, deceit, or ill intentions. An unwavering commitment to principles such as human rights, is imperative in such instances.

However, this approach should not solely adhere to the conventional national mindset where maximizing benefits for oneself prevails. This bias occurs also within national level, even in the regional unbalances of the most developed countries. While attending to our own interests is crucial, it's equally imperative to strike a balance with the benefits for others. The disparities in well-being among different groups occurs in the interplay of time, potentially leading to detrimental repercussions.

We often tend to believe that we are confined to the present moment, that the past is irrevocably gone, and the future remains elusive until it suddenly materializes in the instant. This perspective may hold some truth, but when we dig into the significance and comprehension of culture and history, we realize that the present engages in a continuous dialogue with the past, transforming the meanings associated with historical events.

This phenomenon becomes evident in cities that rename streets or engage in debates about removing or erecting monuments. These actions aren't about altering historical facts, but rather about interpreting their relevance in the present context.

When we dig into the significance and comprehension of culture and history, we realize that the present engages in a continuous dialogue with the past, transforming the meanings associated with historical events.

Similarly, just as the past and present engage in a dialogue of reality, we also find ourselves in a perpetual conversation with the future. The images and anticipations of what lies ahead inevitably shape our current actions.

Immerse in this dynamic, we might experience nostalgia for a past that won't return (such as our childhood or cherished moments with lost loved ones), or even a nostalgia for the present that we know will eventually fade. Currently, we might even find ourselves nostalgic for a future we might never witness.

This time interplay constitutes an incessant interaction between the past, present, and future. Why does this matter? I often notice how we treat the past as if it was unimportant. Societies, media, and policymakers often disregard its impact not only as a variable but also as something that reverberates through generations to come.

Think back to the arrival of the first slave ships in the Americas, the lines drawn during the Berlin Conference of 1894-1895 to divide the African Continent, or the signing of the Versailles Treaty. These events indelibly shaped the futures of generations. Likewise, when our current efforts fall short in addressing climate change, we directly jeopardize the lives of those who will follow.

Many might consider concepts like the Togetherness or Time Interplay as ethereal or impractical. Yet, it's like a subtle software program that, if installed in the minds of decision-makers or and people in general, could potentially alter the trajectory of many divisive choices.

Embracing this perspective isn't just an ethical decision; it's an emotional choice rooted in empathy, while also being a rational decision that acknowledges the collective well-being as the ultimate best for also the individual.

Stories and Dignity for All

Illustration: light bulb and speech bubbles between two communicating heads.
We ought to be prepared to share our personal stories, illustration: Andrew Baker / Ikon Images via picture alliance

Narrative plays a major role for humankind. We do not only breath air, drink water, or nourish from food: we breath, drink and are feed with meaning and understanding from stories.

In the realms of diplomacy and political action, individuals are typically trained to adopt a role representing rationality and advocating for their state's interests. However, politicians and diplomats may not be formally equipped to divulge their own personal histories, or more crucially, to actively seek out and listen to the stories of their counterparts. While they're often encouraged to identify blind spots or weaknesses, can the same principle be applied to points of connection?

We ought to be prepared to share our personal stories—the narratives that define our identities, life journeys, beliefs, and aspirations. This sharing serves two purposes: as an act of sharing and as a recognition that others possess similar, significant histories.

In a world full of polarization and fueled by social media's divisive mechanisms that exploit our primitive instinct for conflict awareness to boost digital traffic, is it conceivable to foster such a practice?

I have observed in various instances a rational analysis that concludes that some individuals in democratic systems end up voting for candidates or options that ultimately run counter to their economic interests. While this rationale might hold validity, politics and human behavior transcend the mere pursuit of material gain. I believe we currently live in an era characterized not only by misinformation but also by anger towards societal outcomes.

Certain political choices, however polarizing or confrontational they may be, often offer an emotional attraction and reward. For some, it's about feeling an emotional redemption or a form of protest by supporting these options. These votes might not yield economic advantages, but they do offer emotional compensation.

Despite the challenges that may surface, I firmly believe that engaging in dialogue and fostering cultural and human exchanges is crucial to do so with empathy and without compromising core principles.

Our endeavors should extend towards not only striving to reduce material inequality worldwide and financing and executing the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, or reducing national and local inequality gaps, but also to consider the symbolic well-being of individuals. This involves promoting respect and dignity for all.

Despite the challenges that may surface, I firmly believe that engaging in dialogue and fostering cultural and human exchanges is crucial to do so with empathy and without compromising core principles.

Stories and cultural exchanges, both within and between countries, can serve as pivotal drivers for understanding. For building more cohesive societies and a harmonious global landscape. This approach aids in addressing the pressing common agenda for the future.

As we navigate the intricate dance between past, present, and future, we can follow the advice of the timeless wisdom of unity and togetherness. The aspiration of a world where voices are heard, and stories are valued, comparably as material wellbeing is being valued in this world.

In a world that is confusing, and in times when the hope for the future appears elusive, I find in these concepts not only consolation, but a point of departure for understanding, change and action.

About the Author
Carlos Alvarado Quesada, photo: private
Carlos Alvarado Quesada
Professor at Tufts University

Carlos Alvarado Quesada is Professor of Diplomatic Practice at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy. He served as President of the Republic of Costa Rica from 2019 to 2022. His presidency focused on combating climate change, human rights, democracy and multilateralism.
He initiated Costa Rica's National Decarbonisation Plan, which aims to decarbonise the country's economy by 2050. In 2022, Alvarado received the Planetary Leadership Award from the National Geographic Society for his commitment and actions to protect the oceans.