Probing Polarization

Polarization is quite possibly the greatest problem facing American society today—as well as many other countries in the world. For various reasons, polarization has grown worse in recent years, to the point that it has extinguished most of what little common ground society once had. We have retreated into our isolated silos and enclaves, as we have come to view those in other silos as enemies, and refuse to listen to them or grant any validity to their beliefs. We engage in cultural wars that aim to utterly defeat the other—giving no quarter. Society seems to have descended into a zero-sum game, wherein one side triumphs while the other is thoroughly vanquished.

Years ago I was involved in conducting various types of nonviolence trainings. The core of the concept—when two parties find themselves locked in conflict—was to seek some common ground, come together on that ground, and then gradually build a cooperative framework to move forward together, for the common good. Those trainings were predicated on the willingness of conflicting parties to engage with each other, in order to work on a community problem that both agreed needed to be resolved—as well as to collaborate in a search for that common ground.

The extreme kind of polarization that permeates society today, however, prevents either side from even considering coming together—except to confront each other. They either do this while screaming at each other over social media, or while being filmed by media, as individuals get in each others' face, engaging in a shouting match. Psychological research has shown that, under these circumstances, each party simply hardens their perspective, with the tragic result that the gap is widened. The parties walk away from these clashes with even more deeply entrenched beliefs, and any possible common ground increasingly vanishes. The level of distrust of and alienation of the other side simply heightens.

Polarization was once confined mostly to the political arena. It has spread, however, and is spilling over into a number of other areas, such as personal relationships, medical advice, hiring decisions, vaccines, etc. As an example of the deleterious impact of polarization on society, progress is hindered on such critical problems as climate change, inequality, and immigration. The two warring sides cannot even agree on what the problem is, let alone find common ground to deal with it.

So, is there any hope for achieving progress on dealing with these issues? Psychological research also shows that there indeed may be a way: polarization can be decreased through what is termed  “mechanistic reasoning.” Very often people conveniently latch onto a viewpoint either because it's simplistic or because they wish to feel a part of a group that holds that viewpoint. We can be lazy... rather than logically arriving at our own thought-out perspective, we grab an easy explanation of something or adopt the perspective put forth by a group ensconced in a specific silo. We cannot really understand the issue this way, but we become convinced that we're right, because the group fervently believes so. When challenged, our certainty just hardens.

That certainty hides the fact that, because our grasp on the issue is shallow, we often don't really understand how it works. Furthermore, false confidence allows us to ignore alternative perspectives or ideas. For example, we may readily attribute the lack of governmental effectiveness in dealing with immigration to one simple factor or another. Those on each side of the issue will seize upon a shallow explanation that fits their preconceived perspective. They then engage in vehement battles based upon those simplistic explanations. Neither side fully understands the complexity of the problem.

Research shows that false confidence can be decreased through a remarkably simple process: ask the person to explain the details of how it works—not their reasons for their belief, but how it works. Ask them to explain how they arrived at their belief by detailing and explaining the issue. What often happens is when they try, they come to understand that they understand less than they thought. And when they can't explain how it works, their certainty decreases and they become less extreme in their view.

A simple example of this idea—from a mechanistic perspective—is that most people think they understand how a bicycle or a refrigerator works. Ask someone to explain the mechanics of a bike or fridge, however, and they often quickly see that they really cannot offer a mechanistic description. Their mind may then become open to learn more about the subject and to change their attitude. When we come to accept the fact that we can't know it all, we can admit to a little humility and begin to listen to others. We may even discover we do have some common ground.

Same Boat Significance

The expression “we're all in the same boat” is a crucial factor in determining whether a group of people pulls together to successfully face a challenge or splinters into factions and fails. When a group—from a handful of people to a full society—coheres, they are able to cooperate with one another to keep the group strong and resilient. Many philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, have described such a society as one that has created a “social contract.” This term describes an agreement among society members to cooperate with each other and with the government, in order to create benefits for all. Those benefits can be crucial for the society to be able to provide for the welfare of its members.

History has shown that small groups have been more successful than large groups in creating and perpetuating the social contract. This is because a small group of people can actually feel that they are in the same boat. For example, when a band of our hunter-gatherer ancestors faced a crisis such as a flood, a troop of lions, or starvation, they naturally pulled together in order to survive. Additionally, everyone knew everyone... they all were literally in the same boat. That cohesiveness is much harder to sustain in large societies. So Rousseau and other philosophers described how large groups inevitably tend to disintegrate and descend into chaos, when members do not feel as if they are in the same boat.

One unfortunate example of when a large society can develop a strong bond is when its country goes to war. The exterior threat causes them to pull together to defend the homeland. The situation then creates an atmosphere of comradeship, that overpowers internal dissensions. Manipulative political leaders know how to unite the populace, by posing another country or people as a threat. This is often done today, for example, in the context of rallying citizens against immigration.

Throughout history the world has been divided into separate geopolitical states that often engaged in war with each other, either because they saw no reason to feel in the same boat with a neighboring country, or they feared it or wanted it. Now we have a global society linked tightly by commerce and the internet. Our communication abilities keep us closely and instantly connected, and yet fragmentation, competition, and polarization can make us feel that we are not at all in the same boat. While the global community should feel more connected, we in fact are fragmented even more.

Societies like the United States are suffering from a severe case of polarization. Rousseau and his colleagues would recognize this process as the disintegration of the social contract and the danger of descent into chaos. Will current societies be able to bridge the polarizing gaps and show their citizens that they are in the same boat, or will we tread farther down the path of disintegration?

Unfounded Fear

Modern society's behavior is often driven by fear. It is ironic that many of those fears are unfounded. We create most of them in our heads. What is paradoxical about the situation is that today's societies are much less threatened than our ancestors' were. They had good reason to be apprehensive of their world, since they were not nearly as powerful as many of the predators they faced. An adequate level of fear was appropriate for them—much like the trepidation exhibited by small and vulnerable critters like mice and birds.

However, today's humans have become the most powerful creatures on the planet, so we no longer need to feel anywhere near the fear level that our deep ancestors did. We are top dog. So why are we so frightened? I believe there are two principle reasons: (1) the more power we acquire, the more we worry that some human stranger will take over and wield power over us, and (2) our polarized society readily turns our opponents into wicked enemies.

In the first case our problem is that we instinctively seek power, whenever we feel uncertain or not in control. We believe that if we build and impenetrable wall or a formidable weapon, we can intimidate any potential foes. They will fear us and leave us alone. And yet, this belief usually leads to an arms race, as our newly-acquired power now seems like a threat to them. So they will seek ways to fortify themselves, to ward us off. Whichever side acquires the greater power at any time, will often find themselves drawn into using that power—not necessarily out of fear, but as much due just to the temptation to see what we can gain by using it.

In the second case we easily succumb to the fear of the opposing clan in a polarized society. There is little inclination to try to understand them, since we become convinced that they are bad and we are good. We readily respond to that primordial feeling of dread of the other. We readily adopt stories of their evilness or unworthiness. This deep-seated fear rises quickly within us, as we experience a rush of adrenaline—which again was useful, when long ago we were surrounded by fearsome threats. Emotions such as anger, ignorance, and misunderstanding feed the problem. 

How do we counter our fears? There are several antidotes, such as fostering empathy, respect, and understanding of the other—which are the core aspects of nonviolence. It's not easy. It's work. It can help to appreciate that feelings such as fear once made more sense for our species, when we were weak, but can be lessened, now that we are strong. It's time to grow up.