The pursuit of peace in a polarized world

Certainly not. There are some green shoots of hope. For example, media outlets and law-makers can, and sometimes do, work across the aisle to dial down the rhetoric and incentivise non-extreme views. In addition, it has been shown that interventions, such as promoting peoples’ overarching identities (e.g., I am an American rather than a republican), giving people accurate information about the “other side”, as well as increasing inter-party contact, have all been some of the more successful ways of reducing polarization and/or improving mutual perceptions. At the same time, there is growing recognition that the pendulum has swung too far, and many on vastly different ends of the political spectrum- whether left to right, populist to conservative – feel that growing political hatred is a problem that needs to be addressed.
 

My research, as well as that of others, indicates that ideology as identity can’t be avoided as a form of conceptualization. As such, we need to be able to productively disagree on politics. This, however, is easier said than done. As mentioned, political ideological differences can be most excruciating because, at their heart, they seem to be an assault on our basic-- and equal-- humanity. Public interest communications, which is about utilizing communication as a medium to address difficult social issues, may hold some lessons for us. Public interest communication, as a discipline, is all about prioritizing democratic processes, such as enabling reasoned debate through consultation and active listening.

First, it is necessary to relate with respect. At the outset of such discussions, you could locate the conversation on the controversy scale, and acknowledge how the other party’s position may differ from yours. This is important, because very often, more privileged conversation partners do locate the issues differently from their less privileged counterparties. For example, if you were discussing the divisive topic of immigration with a newly minted Asian American colleague, what might appear to be a political policy debate to you might be lived experience for her as she battles anti-immigrant bias on a daily basis. Therefore, at the outset, don’t forget to acknowledge that her position (and reality) is different from yours. It can make a world of difference in terms of taking the hurt out of a disagreement.
 

Second, find commonalities. Despite media portraying sensationalist headlines about conflict and division, we actually have more in common than we think. It is important to discuss shared values. For example, research has found that in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the US, people, who were initially portrayed as feeling isolated and disenchanted, actually shared fundamental values and beliefs with others. For instance, studies have shown that, when measured on their differences of opinion on matters of political policy, most Americans are, in fact, in broad agreement. Whether it has to do with immigration, the problem of racism, or even climate change, it seems that most want to do what is best for their country. By focusing on the fundamentals of our agreement, or even on non-relevant areas of similarity, such as hobbies, upbringing, and personality traits, we can gain a strong sense of closeness with others, which, may in turn, foster meaningful exchanges on new ideas.
 

Third, we need to move away from binaries, or binary thinking. Individuals and issues are complex and do not fit neatly into the boxes we assign them. In this regard, we can apply linguist George Lakoff’s concept of “biconceptualism”, meaning that, dependent on the context, people can have both progressive, as well as conservative, worldviews. Management theorists liken this to a paradox perspective – one that may help explain how organizations can simultaneously attend to competing demands. In other words, tensions within organizational life, as well as within life more generally, may be better addressed by a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” approach. For example, in their everyday life, organizational leaders may experience tension when called to embrace intergroup processes and perspectives, even whilst emphasizing employees’ individuality. In such situations, a paradox perspective may help leaders manage, because the relationship between the sources of a tension will change over time, and in response to internal or external events. Therefore, exactly when intergroup processes and perspective should take precedence over individuality, or vice versa, really depends on context and timing. As such, leaders need to be flexible. On an individual level as well, adopting a paradox perspective means that we, too, can try to get  comfortable with discomfort, even though this is difficult. Obviously, having conversations and interacting with our political opposites is never easy. However, just by recognizing that comfort always has its limits, and thereby letting go of the self-affirming balm of our tribe may help us expand our minds. Ironically, in the long run, expanding our minds this way may make us more secure and comfortable over time.

Fourth, practise active listening. To actively listen, try to see things from another’s point of view. Retain curiosity. Come up with questions. Don’t be inauthentic and start changing your opinions to suit the other person. Difference is necessary! But do read up on the other’s position, try to reflect more critically on your own view, and communicate this nuance to the other party. Also, just trying to think of, and mentioning, at least one thing that the other side’s candidate or party is doing right might help with your own perspective-taking, and take some of the heat out of an argument. Remember, just the act of seeking out intergroup contact, and trying to have a deeper, more meaningful dialogue, helps. In fact, research has shown that simply imagining intergroup contact helps improve cross-partisan feelings.

There is a poem written upon the announcement of the 1994 ceasefire in Northern Ireland. Written by Northern Irish poet Michael Longley, it likens the ceasefire to the uneasy meeting between Priam and Achilles of the Iliad. During the meeting, the two great heroes of mythology face off in full recognition of what the other side represents, “star[ing] at each other’s beauty as lovers might”. Finally, Priam kneels down and does what must be done, and gives Achilles, the murderer of his son, a kiss of reconciliation. Clearly, this is an imperfect peace, however, without it, there is no future.

Of course, questions remain with respect to polarization. For example, to what extent is privilege related to polarization? What do we do with the contradictions inherent in inclusion? Maybe we have been a little too brash with our assumptions. By solely considering polarization as a phenomenon that takes place between equal-status groups, we have been favoring perspectives that explain conflict without any reference to the history, and difficulties of, intergroup relations. Certainly, these are all tough questions with no simple, one-dimensional solutions in sight. Also, it is possible that, despite taking these abovementioned steps, difficult conversations on politics may still end badly. But that doesn’t mean that we walk away. To have such hard conversations, we need to accept discomfort as a reality, and be willing to hazard potentially risky interactions. In the process, we make discoveries about others- and ourselves- that we never knew.