Republican or democrat.
Conservative or liberal.
This or that.
Left or right. Red or blue.
Us vs them.
Me vs you.
Political polarization - is it a race that ends in civil war or can we use its competitive nature and leverage it to lean more into collaborative efforts?
The results are in… kinda.
Applying tools from Michael Schwalbe's Making a Difference: Using Sociology to Create a Better World, to take a sociologically mindful approach to Political Polarization brought a lot to the surface. I chose the skills of: researching, listening, empathizing, conserving and writing. Below I highlight peer-reviewed studies, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and lived experience as I dove into one of the hottest and most volatile topics we face in the United States. The tools Schwalbe offers in his book provide a framework to ensure that we take a holistic view towards matters of social change. In the following writing, I share how empathy, conservation, deep listening and research have influenced my views on how political polarization impacts us as well as how polarization is necessary for a fully functional democracy.
At the core of politics is the process of navigating differences. At the core of polarization is difference.
Difference is the common denominator. It’s a necessary component.
How we navigate the divide is complex.
I chose to take a road trip through the canyons of research to get a better understanding of how we can be more mindful of the gap between left and right, red and blue - and ultimately, the politics of me vs you.
Polarization is a problem that cannot be solved, but only managed.
Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University
To gain a better understanding of how we got here, we must look at biology and history. As Professor Erik Fisher, Senior Global Futures Scientist at Arizona State University, posits regarding politics - history matters. When we look at history, we can’t discount human evolution and our role in how we’ve shaped our reality.
Dr. Kurt Gray, Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience at UNC Chapel Hill and Director of The Center for the Science of Moral Understanding, takes us back to the prehistoric days to understand how evolution has played a part in polarization. Humans haven’t always been the apex predator. We used to be prey. (Stand Together, 2024)
Through adaptation, cognitive development, tools and innovation, social structure and organization; humans have tilted the scales from being prey to being the ultimate predator. Dr. Gray reminds us though, that we are still ‘animals and we are afraid of threats’. (Stand Together, 2024) As humans evolved, we found a greater sense of safety in larger groups - we had strength in numbers. However, instead of threats of wild animals; threats came from each other. Dr. Gray states that we developed a sense of morality to uphold honorable ways of interacting with one another. Here’s where it gets interesting - it’s the same sense of morality that creates a degree of separation. What one views as moral, another may view as a threat to their safety thus needing to protect one’s self, family or social group - bringing us back to the predator/prey scenario.
Shouldn’t we have evolved to such a degree that our moral sense kicks in displaying deeper understanding through compassion, empathy and listening?
First, we need to put the predator/prey analogy into context: the predator attacks the prey, there is no compromise, there is no bargaining, there is no conversation and no agreement. Either the prey escapes to safety or it dies. It is a this or that, live or die scenario.
Dr. Andrew Huberman, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Ophthalmology at the Stanford University School of Medicine and famous podcaster, points to why empathy hits a roadblock in polarized scenarios. In most polarized environments, it takes on a similar energy of the predator/prey situation. There are two positions jockeying to defend what they feel is right to maintain a sense of safety - mentally, physically, spiritually and perhaps most importantly, emotionally.
As Dr. Huberman relates, when someone or something verifies and supports what we think or feel, it hits our reward center releasing the neurochemicals, dopamine and adrenaline. (RespireOfficial, 2023) So, neurologically, we are wired to feel a sense of reward when our beliefs are validated and supported and with the highly charged arena of political ideology, our reward centers are flooded furthering the divide and creating an almost impossible bridge for empathy to cross.
Not only are we faced with a barrage of polarizing messages through social media and news networks in America to satiate our beliefs, this is where we get a majority of our information from. America’s Political Pulse study by Stand Together, a grassroots philanthropic community that addresses our nation's most pressing issues, stresses that in order for us to bridge the gap of political polarization we need to become more engaged beyond the sensationalism that plays on our emotional reactivity and fear/reward systems.
Empathy meet Engagement
In a groundbreaking 2019 study published in the Cambridge Press by Elizabeth N. Simas, Scott Clifford and Justin H. Kirkland, How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization; they concluded that ‘higher levels of dispositional empathy actually facilitate partisan polarization.’
Wait, what?
Being empathic actually facilitates polarization? This really challenged my personal beliefs. To me, empathy seemed to be the missing ingredient.
Going back to the predator/prey analogy and understanding of neuroscience, when threatened we innately retreat to safety; often bypassing any moral code and seeking safety - which is usually a community that validates our beliefs and ideology. We tend to empathize more with the struggle of those that we identify with which builds an even more cohesive bond and vilifies the ‘others’ in the process.
Though, all is not lost as Carnegie Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program senior fellow Rachel Kleinfeld attests that studies show that most Americans agree on most issues that impact human rights, moral integrity and justice. The problem is that our political leaders do not. (Carnegie Endowment, 2023) Thus, we are stuck in a feedback loop of social media memes and news outlets producing sound bites and spins projecting images and talking points that target our emotions. Being that we tend to watch news programs that validate our beliefs, this amplifies our positive feelings and further reinforces our negative ones. This phenomenon is known as Affective Polarization - the distance between our positive emotions about our selected party and negative emotions regarding the opposition.
Empathy plays a significant role in leaning into the discomfort of the opposition’s beliefs by seeking to understand, asking questions of what they feel they need and where they may feel unheard or unmet as well as listening for common ground to go beyond difference into acknowledgment.
As noted earlier, difference is the common denominator and is the fabric of our democracy. Conserving polarity is necessary otherwise we would be in a dictatorship. Hence, why we have the 1st Amendment fundamental rights in the first place. Having healthy conversations regarding issues that impact us is integral in experiencing a more sustainable and harmonious human experience. Polarity provides a range of possibilities. How we navigate that divide may be complex, though it’s not impossible.
A more sustainable and harmonious human experience requires more than thoughts of a more peaceful, unified world. It requires surrendering our fixated position even if just for a moment. It requires our active participation and getting comfortable in uncomfortable situations. It requires asking tough questions. It requires more than just hearing what's being said, it requires deeply listening to what is being shared. It requires us to acknowledge rather than reject. It requires us to see humanity in one another. It requires us to seek collaboration over competition. It requires our presence.
We are better together.
Resources to consider for active participation in bridging the divide:
Braver Angels - https://braverangels.org/
Stand Together - https://standtogether.org/
**************
References:
Schwalbe, Michael (2020) Making a Difference: Using Sociology to Create a Better World. Oxford University Press
Respire Official (2023, May 3). The Neuroscience of Political Polarization [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bfc7kmRtnz8
Carnegie Endowment (2023, September 15) What Can Be Done About Polarization in the United States? [video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Z5Rx-XiE8
Stand Together (2024, January 17) The psychology of political polarization | Conservatives vs. Liberals[video] YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N2RDWl_q8I
Stand Together (2024, August 7) New study pinpoints key factor fueling American polarization [video] YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxPpLf07d_I
Elizabeth N. Simas, Scott Clifford and Justin H. Kirkland (2019) How Empathic Concern Fuels Political Polarization, Cambridge Press. Retrieved November 7, 2024, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/how-empathic-concern-fuels-political-polarization/8115DB5BDE548FF6AB04DA661F83785E
Robert B Talisse (2024) When Is Political Polarization Good and When Does It Go Bad?, Greater Good Magazine, Retrieved November 7, 2024 from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/when_is_political_polarization_good_and_when_does_it_go_bad
Comments