{"id":1853,"date":"2023-12-25T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-12-25T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1853"},"modified":"2023-12-20T15:36:17","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T15:36:17","slug":"how-to-take-an-extremist-seriously","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-take-an-extremist-seriously\/","title":{"rendered":"How to take an extremist seriously"},"content":{"rendered":"

With the rise of polarization and support for right-wing populism, there is a call to take seriously the perspectives of those who seemingly turn away from liberal democratic ideals. But what if this involves taking persons seriously who are in the grip of QAnon, racism, climate change denialism, or The Great Replacement theory? If a person is so clearly epistemically and morally wrong, is it even possible to take them seriously? Setting aside the question whether and when it is desirable<\/em> to engage with such a person, this blog unpacks what taking them seriously entails. It does so for the context of interpersonal encounters between civilians.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

One can take another person seriously by critically engaging with their views. Critical engagement is characterized by evaluating reasons, reflecting on underlying assumptions, and so forth. The point of critical engagement is to advance truth, knowledge, and justification and, collectively, to improve the information that we share and rely on and protect it from influences such as misinformation.[2]<\/a> Usually, critical engagement is open-minded. But should someone consider arguments for The Great Replacement theory with a willingness to follow the argument where it leads? When a view is so extreme, open-mindedness not only seems unrealistic, but also irrational or even immoral.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

One might just bite the bullet: we shouldn\u2019t open-mindedly engage but do so with a closed mind instead. This is difficult to reconcile with taking the other seriously. True, there are asymmetrical relations, such as therapist-patient or teacher-student, where such an asymmetry in attitude might benefit and not be detrimental to the exchange. But when we are not in such a hierarchical relationship, closed-minded engagement seems precisely the kind of engagement in which the other is not taken seriously. If the core of critical engagement is evaluating arguments and establishing who\u2019s right and wrong, then insulating one\u2019s views from the exchange seems presumptuous and disrespectful.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, critical engagement presupposes some common ground for discussion, which is precisely what seems to be lacking when encountering, say, a QAnon-believer. The QAnon-supporter relies on different information sources (not the mainstream\/lamestream media!), different experts, different values, in other words, on a whole different framework of what the facts are and who and what should be trusted to gain knowledge of them. But without common ground, the parties will see each other\u2019s reasons as stupid or even evil. This makes it even more difficult to take the other person seriously and might even lead to mutual rejection and animosity instead (deRidder 2021). The failure to recognize the reasoning of the other person will only lead to further alienation.<\/p>\n

So, what should we do? There is another kind of taking seriously that aims not at learning from<\/em> but about<\/em> other points of view. We are all situated: our background, social position, and experience partly determine our perspective. An implication of this is that we cannot easily imagine what it is like for someone who is differently situated, and has had entirely different life experiences (Collins 1990; Harding 1991). Rather, learning about other perspectives relies on information obtained from the inside of those perspectives. In other words, to understand the point of view held by a group, we need to listen to its members. This conclusion also applies to extremists.<\/p>\n

But one can listen in different ways. For example, one could seek merely to retrieve information. A journalist or detective might listen by just taking note of the other person\u2019s reasons. This might require curiosity about the other\u2019s perspective, but the inquirer\u2019s own perspective remains untouched. Another form of listening goes a step further by trying to understand the other person on their own terms<\/em>. Situatedness often entails a lack of shared vocabulary in addition to lack of knowledge. The meaning of what someone says depends, at least in part, on their lived experience, conceptual horizons, and worldviews.[4]<\/a> Seeking to understand another person, trying to make sense of them, to interpret what they mean, thus requires awareness of the limitations of our own perspective and how that might obstruct our understanding (Beatty 1999).<\/p>\n

What is crucial here is that there is no requirement of fully fledged open-mindedness. What is needed is epistemic openness<\/em> that goes beyond retrieving information and aims at understanding. This openness includes a willingness to develop awareness of one\u2019s own situatedness and how that might influence one\u2019s inquiry.[5]<\/a> There are three dimensions to that awareness. First, awareness of the limitations of one\u2019s own perspective helps to counter prejudice, bias, and misunderstanding by reflecting on one\u2019s responses and interpretations (Beatty 1999). Second, awareness of the presuppositions of one\u2019s own discourse helps to understand the meanings, evaluations and prejudices that are associated with the words and labels we use (Vadeboncoeur et al. 2015). Third, awareness of our social and political positions facilitates reflection on how inequalities might obstruct taking the other seriously.<\/p>\n

This, I admit, is only the beginning of an answer to the question of how to take an extremist seriously. Importantly, it remains to be explored how such listening avoids the danger of platforming, mainstreaming, or normalizing extremism. This might require an institutional setting or, at least, a context where it is clear that the aim of the exchange is understanding, and not sympathizing.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This blog is the first post of the series \u201cExtreme Beliefs and Behavior.\u201d With thanks to the Extreme Beliefs Project (www.extremebeliefs.com), especially Nora Kindermann, Jakob Ohlhorst, and Rik Peels. Research for this post has been made possible through the project Extreme Beliefs: The Epistemology and Ethics of Fundamentalism<\/em>, funded by the European Research Council (ERC) in the program Horizon 2020 (851613) and by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Beatty, J. (1999) \u201cGood Listening.\u201d Educational Theory<\/em> 49 (3): pp. 281-298.<\/p>\n

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment<\/em>. Routledge.<\/p>\n

deRidder, J. (2021). \u201cDeep Disagreements and Political Polarization.\u201d In Political Epistemology<\/em>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Euben, R.L. (1999). Enemy in the Mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Limits of Modern Rationalism: A Work of Comparative Political Theory<\/em>. Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n

Fantl, J. (2018). The Limitations of the Open Mind<\/em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Gadamer, H.G. (1985). Truth and Method. <\/em>New York: Crossroad.<\/p>\n

Harding, Sandra (1991).\u00a0Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives<\/em>. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.<\/p>\n

Kloosterboer, N. unpublished manuscript. \u201cHow to take an extremist seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n

McCormick, M.S. (2023). \u201cEngaging with \u201cFringe\u201d Beliefs: Why, When, and How.\u201d Episteme<\/em>: 1-16.<\/p>\n

Vadeboncoeur, J.A., Alkouatli, C., Amini, N. (2015). \u201cElaborating” dialogue” in communities of inquiry: Attention to discourse as a method for facilitating dialogue across difference.\u201d Childhood & Philosophy<\/em> 11(22): 299-318.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> There are many more contexts where taking an extremist seriously plays a crucial role, such as that of the media or of research, in eliciting context-specific questions. The research-context is the focus of the next blog in this series.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> This is in line with the widely accepted standard of J.S. Mill and more recently argued by, for example, DeRidder (2021) and McCormick (2023).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> As Fantl (2018) argues, one should only be willing to change one\u2019s view with relevant <\/em>counterarguments, not when views are clearly misguided. An important reason for this is that it is difficult to show that an argument is false, especially in our current situation where disinformation, fake news, and cleverly disguised false arguments are prevalent (think of propaganda, for instance).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> This is a central pillar of the hermeneutic tradition (Gadamer 1985).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Euben (1999); Vadebonceour et al. (2015).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> This is what I am developing in my current work, see for instance Kloosterboer (ms.).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photo by Daniel Lonn<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"With the rise of polarization and support for right-wing populism, there is a call to take seriously the perspectives of those who seemingly turn away from liberal democratic ideals. But […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1855,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Kloosterboer \"How to take an extremist seriously\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[184,419,49,8],"custom_author":[426],"class_list":["post-1853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-belief","tag-extremism","tag-open-mindedness","tag-polarization","custom_author-kloosterboer-naomi"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-tT","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2169,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-affective-in-affective-polarization\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":0},"title":"The \u201caffective\u201d in affective polarization","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Public opinion in many contemporary democracies shows increasing signs of polarization. In particular, animosity and dislike across political lines have become increasingly characteristic of Western mass publics (Boxell et al., 2024; Finkel et al., 2020; Wagner, 2024). Several empirical methodologies designed to measure citizens\u2019 opinions, which include questions about their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":679,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-polarization-does-to-us\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":1},"title":"What Polarization Does to Us","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Commentators from across the political spectrum warn us that extreme partisan polarization is dissolving all bases for political cooperation, thereby undermining our democracy.\u00a0 The near total consensus on this point is suspicious.\u00a0 A recent Pew study finds that although citizens want politicians to compromise more, they tend to blame only\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/blindfold.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-is-closed-mindedness\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":2},"title":"What is Closed-Mindedness?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On March 7 2017, Jason Chaffetz who was then a member of the US House of Representatives (R-Utah) told a CNN anchor: \u201cAmericans have choices\u2026.rather than\u00a0getting that new iPhone\u2026they should invest\u2026in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions for themselves.\u201d[1] Later the same day, in a discussion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-find-wisdom-in-a-divided-society\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":3},"title":"How to Find Wisdom in a Divided Society","author":"Blogs Admin","date":"January 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"[snippet id=\"325\" label=\"Igor and Alex\"] It is not a debate that political division in the U.S., UK and many other European countries is at an all-time high. In the U.S., disagreement on the topics of race, national security, and environmental regulations\u2014just to name a few\u2014have increased during the Obama administration,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Oriental_Theatre_from_balcony_-_Portland_Oregon2-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1005,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-are-we-so-polarized-and-how-can-we-move-forward-a-perspective-from-social-epistemology\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":4},"title":"Why are we so polarized, and how can we move forward? A perspective from social epistemology.","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Contemporary academic philosophy has recently taken a \u201csocial turn\u201d regarding the way it thinks about knowledge and related issues.\u00a0 Put differently, philosophy has turned away from the traditional ideal of a self-sufficient inquirer, doing his or her best to figure out what is reasonable to believe, in favor of a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/09\/canstockphoto48175967-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":618,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/empathetic-understanding-in-politics\/","url_meta":{"origin":1853,"position":5},"title":"Empathetic Understanding in Politics","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 25, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"What is the goal of political conversation? Why should we deliberate with others about politics? Democratic deliberation is said to benefit people in many ways. For example, it has been touted as a way to produce civic engagement, increase faith in democratic institutions, encourage a willingness to compromise, and make\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/02\/jonathan-sharp-1096746-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/12\/daniel-lonn-Regf9o7r_ZM-unsplash-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1853"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1853\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1856,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1853\/revisions\/1856"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1853"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}