To bridge divisions, talk to one another
Nearly 20 years ago, Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote a book called, “Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse.” One wonders if she realized at that time how prophetic her book is. Perhaps one of the more significant of Glendon’s comments is, “In the home of free speech, genuine exchange of ideas about matters of high public importance has come to a virtual standstill.”
Today, we do not talk to each other; we shout at each other. My rights trump your rights. We medicalize our vocabulary by characterizing words of disagreement as being harmful and traumatizing. We express others’ behavior and speech in terms of descriptive morality, thereby enabling us to engage in the moral dependency of clinging to couching disagreements as physical harm. We take another’s words or behaviors and instantiate them as concrete attempts to inflict pain. We treat victimhood as a virtue and publicize microaggressions and call attention to those we characterize as the enemy.
We think of ourselves as rational thinkers when, in reality, we are feeling humans first before we engage in being thinking humans. We attach meaning to our feelings treating them as reality. Often our reality is supported through contact with others, especially in this age of social media. A quick check of our reasoning may bring hundreds of “likes” at the stroke of a key.
Our propensity to associate with others like us, who think like us and agree with us, supports our interpretation of reality. We make ideas sacred, and in a cultish fashion, we lose the ability to think clearly. We abandon exploratory thinking and engage in confirmatory thinking. Psychologists refer to this as confirmation bias.
Our neighborhoods are splitting. According to social identity theory, individuals define themselves mainly regarding the social groups they identify. They are motivated to maintain a positive conception of these groups. The recent election demonstrated this with neighbors unfriending neighbors whose lawns displayed campaign signs of the opposition. We do not disagree with candidates; we hate them. The political divide does not end in the neighborhood, extending to the top of our government.
As a republic, we in the United States elect representatives to deliberate and enact our laws. Presently, we have two parties that are not separated by an aisle but by a wall. The representatives do not intermingle and discuss; they march lockstep behind the party leadership.
We can do something about this state of affairs.
We could begin by supporting the equality of all citizens. We could initiate contact with others with pleasantry. It could be a simple statement to a neighbor, “I have always admired the beautiful garden in front of your house.” According to social exchange theory, such interactions elicit approval from another person and are more likely to be reciprocated. Moreover, such encounters build social capital that may enable building trust, norms, and networks to work towards a common purpose. More importantly, the encounters increase the likelihood of reciprocity.
Finally, we might acknowledge that we have one thing in common; we are all human beings. In reality, we have more in common than we have differences.
Once again, please, can we talk?
Philip Pons, Ph.D., is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, a Vietnam veteran and the founder of a consulting company specializing in conflict resolution and change management. He lives in Hampton.