As
we look at the pictures from Uvalde, Buffalo, and other mass
shootings, we’re having agonized conversation. It seems
inconceivable that “the other side” could look at those
same photos yet reach utterly different conclusions about their
meanings.
I’ve
been researching how liberals and conservatives experience talking
across our divide. Three things stand out: we all tend to experience
those conversations the same way, we all try hard to avoid them, and
each cross-divide interaction adds to overall conflict dynamics in
our country – both positively and negatively.
We
all avoid talking to the other side for similar reasons: the other
person won’t listen, will get too emotional, and there would be
no point. Essentially, we’re united in how uncomfortable these
exchanges make us feel.
If
we do engage, we often do aggressively. We usually don’t ask
questions to try to understand the other person, but instead throw
out statements of identity and values (“Well, I’m a
Democrat and I think…”). Worse, we use demeaning
language (“I can’t believe someone as smart as you would
think like that,” a conservative woman reported hearing
frequently.)
These
sharp interactions just escalate conflict, confirming our negative
thoughts about the other side and making us even less likely to want
to interact across the divide. As one liberal white woman said, “I
find it harder, as time goes on, doing your best not to vilify the
other side.” A conservative white man took it further,
describing us as having “a society and a culture politically
where people are not happy unless they’re mad.”
But
my research also showed that sometimes we engage because we are tired
of feeling cut off from others. As an Asian American man said, “I
don’t want to be so alone, being a conservative in a very
liberal-leaning workplace. I feel it’s important to figure out
how to talk to people.” He was echoed by a liberal white man
living in a red state: “It’s about getting closer to my
neighbors so I can be friendly. It feels good. It’s educating.”
Just
as negative encounters intensify our country-wide conflict dynamics,
positive encounters relax them. Almost everyone I interviewed said
they wanted to be able to have these conversations not only to feel
more connected to their families and communities, but also for the
health of our democracy. “Neither side is going away, so we
have to talk and work together,” said a young, liberal African
American woman. People who described having had good cross-divide
conversations also said they wanted to do it more often – a
virtuous circle.
What
did people think would enable more such conversations? Most said
they’d do it if they knew the other side would listen and be
respectful, rather than descend into personal attacks. Essentially,
they wanted ground rules and support. Happily, many organizations
offer exactly that, from Living Room Conversations and Braver Angels,
to community mediation centers around the country.
Other
research shows that we agree about more than we realize, as our
divisions are about partisan labels rather than policy substance.
Maybe it’s time for us to become anthropologists of our own
culture: taking a deep breath, formulating genuinely curious
questions about how other Americans see things so differently, and
having those connection-building conversations.
This
commentary is also posted on PeaceVoice
