Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Navigating the polycrisis

Insights from the Mediators Foundation and the Bridge Alliance

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum.

It's no coincidence that the work of the Mediators Foundation resonates with me, as the organization is part of the original DNA of the Bridge Alliance. The latest instance of my head nodding in agreement stems from this week's article by the Mediators Foundation’s Mark Gerzon and Mesa Sebree. It really gets to the core of how all those working in the healthy democracy ecosystem can collectively approach the complex web of issues facing the world known as the polycrisis.


The term "polycrisis" usually describes a situation where multiple crises intersect and amplify one another, creating a compounded and more severe impact than each crisis would have individually. This concept also suggests that the interactions between various crises can lead to more complex and unpredictable challenges. In a polycrisis, the different crises are not just co-occurring; their interconnections exacerbate the overall situation, making it more challenging to manage and resolve. For example, an economic downturn might worsen political instability, hindering effective responses to climate change or public health threats. The term underscores the need for comprehensive and coordinated approaches to address these interconnected issues.

The concept of polycrisis has a rich history, rooted in systems thinking and complexity science. These disciplines have long studied how interconnected crises can compound and amplify one another. The term “polycrisis” was first used in the 1990s by Edgar Morin and Anne Brigitte Kern, as detailed in the Cascade Institute report cited by Gerzon and Sebree. More recently, the term was popularized by Jean-Claude Juncker, the former president of the European Commission. He used the term in a 2016 speech to describe the multiple overlapping crises facing Europe, including the Syrian refugee crisis, Russian security threats to Ukraine, the Greek debt crisis, and Brexit. Most recently, the World Economic Forum at Davos pushed the term into the lexicon of business executives and elites, a sign that it has thoroughly infiltrated our society.

Network graph of  the Global Risks Perception Survey 2022-2023 from the World Economic ForumWorld Economic Forum

Gerzon and Sebree outline perspectives on the 10 most distinct interlocking issues of the polycrisis as they currently understand it. Each perspective is presented as a critical, interconnected issue that requires a holistic and integrated approach to tackle the polycrisis effectively. They are:

  • Endangered democracy.
  • Climate change.
  • Economic injustice.
  • Toxic polarization.
  • Artificial intelligence/tech.
  • Mental health.
  • Racism.
  • Nuclear war.
  • Gender discrimination.
  • The illusion of separateness.

They continue with an exploration of five strategies for addressing the polycrisis, acknowledging the challenges practitioners focused on each sector of work face in competing for resources and attention. Despite those challenges, it remains unavoidable that each cause impacts and is impacted by the rest and more unanticipated factors. No less important is the truth that individuals engaging in social change work must be mindful of maintaining their mental health and spiritual practices and constantly remain open to changing their perspective.

Finally, the article's analysis turns to priority setting. There is often a focus on "the global polycrisis," but the nature of interconnected challenges lends the concept to vary depending on place and time. The crises we face as global citizens affect and are affected by the crises specifically facing American society. Similarly, the crises we face as Americans affect and are affected by the crises specifically facing individual states and communities. Just as national practitioners cannot and are not looking to focus on accessing the levers of global institutional power, local communities must realize their agency in addressing what they need to develop to adapt to survive the effects of the polycrises.

Our community of practice in the healthy democracy ecosystem has demonstrated the effectiveness of supporting bottom-up civic engagement while maintaining national resources to support communities. The Mediators Foundation is looking toward the Resilience Funders Network model and exploring ways to best support broader dialogue about the scope and strategy of communities for working within the polycrisis. At a time when these challenges are on our screens and in our minds, it is reassuring to read this vital take on how we can face them head-on.

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less