“Ukraine is at War”; “Floods are devastating Pakistan ”; “China’s zero-covid measures are causing chaos and frustration”; Today’s news seems flooded with poignant and distressing stories that make it appear as if the world is about to be engulfed in flames. Understandably, many of us become outraged by these injustices and engage in protests or movements to advocate for support in affected regions. Uproar can last a couple of weeks, perhaps a month, but rarely longer than that. Time and time again, the flame of these movements gradually dies out, and everyone seems, for the most part, to just “move on.” For a public with such seemingly internationalist beliefs, this comes as a shock, and unfortunately, this apathy can have tremendous negative impacts on the creation of foreign policy and the outcomes of foreign crises.
The lack of sustained attention from the public is a continuing pattern, evident in cases such as the ongoing war in Ukraine as well as the Black Lives Matter movement. In both examples, while the issue is still at large, the public has mostly lost interest along with the motivation to fight for change. The riots stopped. Fewer posts appeared on social media. Governments ceased to actively address the issue. However, according to a 2019 survey, 76 percent of respondents agree that they have “a duty to support the health, education and economic opportunity for the world’s poorest and most marginalized people”. This then begs the question: why are individuals so quick to lose interest? Was the concern for these issues so superficial to begin with? Or, are there other reasons to explain this disproportionate indifference?
As a response to these questions, academics have theorized numerous reasons as to why this may be happening. Some blame the media, claiming that news fatigue and the immense volume of information overwhelm individuals into becoming indifferent and avoidant. This is understandable, as renowned anthropologist Robin Dunbar suggests that any individual can only maintain meaningful relationships with about 150 people. Though this theory has been broadly contested, the key idea here is that our brains have a limited capacity to emotionally and cognitively engage with many people. So while individuals are upset and disturbed by disasters in various parts of the world, the strain from trying to care about all of these issues can lead to avoidance and indifference. Furthermore, the news industry thrives on novelty and shock factor, so focusing on a single story for consecutive months is not necessarily lucrative. Hence, it becomes much easier for the public to forget about the issue or to believe that it has been more or less resolved. Others suggest that this attitude is a product of people’s increasing negative affect – a state of heightened emotional distress, anxiety, and generally bad feelings. From the exhaustion caused by the pandemic to inflation to the myriad of other natural and anthropogenic disasters in recent years, it isn’t hard to see how this could be happening. Feeling stressed and unhappy can make it difficult to care about and want to help with others’ problems because so much of your cognitive power is already being used up worrying about your own! In fact, several of the factors mentioned may contribute to our general lack of ability to care about problems in other parts of the world.
Another facet to consider is that news outlets can easily mischaracterize international issues and create inaccurate perceptions of the key problems that should be addressed. Not long ago, after the 2021 Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, there was a large spread of misinformation regarding Afghan immigrants. Outlets made flagrant claims about an “Afghan Invasion” in the West, causing discussions on immigration policy to focus more on security than a humanitarian emergency. Perhaps this explains why only about half of surveyed Americans support the US resettlement of Afghan refugees. Setting aside misinformation from sensationalist news outlets, even well-intentioned sources sometimes get it wrong. In the case of the freedom movement in Iran, news stories fixate on less relevant components such as Kurdish separatism, or they emphasize recent individual crimes, neglecting the over 40 years of brutal massacres and systematic oppression of rights caused by the Islamic regime. This lack of understanding of the full scope or nuances leads to indifference and apathy with major ramifications.
Consequently, some might say, “Well, what’s the big deal? In the end, we can’t change much, so why worry?” This kind of thinking is a gross and dangerous misconception. Evidence shows that public attitudes and levels of engagement with foreign issues can significantly impact government action toward them. In his article on how the American public shapes foreign policy, James M. Lindsay explains that public opinion shapes foreign policy in three main ways: firstly, it encourages politicians who are inclined to attend to issues that matter to the public to neglect foreign policy. Second, politicians with strong personal interests in foreign policy can more easily make unilateral and extreme decisions. This was exemplified in the United States during debates over the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the rejection of it by zealous Republican Senators. Finally, public apathy can weaken the leadership of the country by the prime minister or president. Researchers from the University of Toronto point out that this apathy contributes to political dividedness in the sense that no clear goal is identified by the public. Perspectives on opposing sides of the political spectrum “cancel out” in a way, and so it is easier for governments to default into inaction. This was a significant factor contributing to the substantial drop in foreign aid efforts from Canada in the 1990s, making it one of the least generous donor countries at the time. The (semi) good news is that despite the public’s largely indifferent attitude, all may not be lost. James Lindsay makes the notable distinction that it matters not “how many people line up on each side of an issue but how intensely each side holds its opinions.” This is somewhat of a hopeful notion as the problem is not that people do not care; it is simply that the action that they commit is insufficient. Perhaps this presents us with an avenue for combating apathy and reconciling our internationalist beliefs with real-world action.
Despite predominant internationalist beliefs, many Canadians and citizens of other Western countries experience a general apathy towards foreign issues, be it due to an overload of information, news avoidance, or negative affect. However, we can not allow these obstacles to become excuses to remain indifferent and inactive. As we have seen, weakened commitment to these international values can have dire consequences for foreign policy and crises. There are several issues currently at large in the world that are implicated in what we can learn from this pattern. Will Canada uphold its commitment to support Ukraine as one of the G7 nations? Or will the increasing demand for aid cause the support to falter? Concerning the current freedom movement in Iran, to what extent will the government support the movement? Will it employ appropriate Magnitsky sanctions and terror listings against the IRGC, or will it remain mostly inert and indecisive? Unless we can recognize the impact of our inaction and indifference, it is very possible that governments will be unable to provide effective international aid and will be unable to mitigate avoidable suffering and turmoil. The government will remain as indifferent in its action as the people it represents. The solution is in your hands, so what will you do?
Edited by Ruqayya Farrah
Setareh Setayesh is a second year student at McGill University, currently pursuing a B. Sc degree in Psychology. She joined Catalyst as a staff writer this year and is particularly interested in social epidemiology and the interaction between culture and politics in relation to human rights and development.
بهتر از این نمیشه
My comment on Setareh’s excellent article.
This is certainly a broad psychological assessment of international apathy and its likely roots. Setareh is an erudite writer knocking on all available sources to explain why the world is turning a deaf ear toward the miseries of the unfortunate. I particulatly enjoyed the deep and not so hidden sympathy demonstrated toward the underdogs of the world.
One also could add a sociological-historical perspective as well. For example, the high frequency of the third world countries failure in state building could be discussed. A large number of developing countries are in effect failed states that no matter what the donor countries do, those states seem to be unsalvageable. Afghanistan is the latest case in point; and a country unable to govern itself. Such countries fall outside the realm of customary world and gradually lose international attraction. Another notable factor is the lopsided population growth in poor countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. When waves of human refugees reach the shores of Europe or borders of North America and overwhelm local communities, apathy dissipates. Recently, roughly 2 million Latins crossed the Southern borders of the US illegally. In Europe, illegal migrants caused a shift in political orientation toward the us right wing politics. Just recently Italy elected a proto-Fascist Prime Minister Ms. Giorgio Meloni. In her first speech she promised to stop illegal emigrants decisively. In fact the same movement toward far right politicians and agendas could be observed in traditionally progressive countries like Sweden and Norway due to the arrival of illegal immigrants en mass. Eastern European countries like Hungary have already knuckled under the waves of illegal immigrants. The far right politicians have a field day using this phenomenon as an excuse for their xenophobia. One can add a host of other factors leading to apathy towards misery and decline of various countries due to natural and political factors. The high frequency of crime and instability reports in the media (in the social media platforms in particular), and their impact on apathy of all sorts could be enumerated separately.
Rasool Nafisi
Strayer University (ret.)