Our Shared Duty to Confront Toxic Polarization

It can be difficult to be an American these days— in part because it often feels like we are at war with ourselves.
 
For years, the founding principle of “one nation … indivisible,” has been pushed aside by a prevailing attitude that the enemy lives among us. 
 
Regardless of where you stand on the ideological spectrum, you likely hear daily rhetoric demonizing those who belong to the opposing political party. There’s a steady drumbeat that those who hold different religious or moral beliefs, who live in a different state, or who hail from a different cultural tradition pose an existential threat to our freedom and way of life.
 
The sad fact is that those who hold beliefs different than your own are hearing the same rhetoric about who you are and what you believe.
 
And as the rhetoric continues to escalate, so do the risks.
 
As communicators, we have an opportunity — and a responsibility — to help move us away from the brink.
 
That opportunity allows us to continue to stand up for what we believe in, but do so in ways that aim to bring us closer together rather than drive us further apart.
 
The Chronicle of Philanthropy earlier this month published a powerful piece jointly authored by six prominent philanthropic leaders with widely differing political and ideological views. 
 
Some work for organizations that lean strongly liberal. Others lead groups that have an extreme rightward bend. But, together, they recognize that our field must stand together to address our nation’s rapidly growing fissures.

“Many of the issues that divide America are real and consequential. When it comes to issues such as race, wealth, climate, and religion, the stakes are high,” they write. “And as the stakes grow, so too do the perceived costs of engagement — or even toleration — of people, views, and ideas on the other side of ever brighter lines of division.”

To address this issue, the authors propose a series of principles — two of which are especially relevant to social-good communicators.
 
Here’s the first:

“When we challenge another’s views or activities, we focus on substantive arguments and invite response. While disagreements may be profound — even fundamental — we believe that public debates should rely on reason and open conversation. We discourage practices such as personal or ad hominem attacks because we regard them as unhelpful to productively advancing knowledge within a pluralistic society.”

And here’s the second:

“We seek to approach disagreements with respect. Respect does not imply acceptance of a view or even commitment to a common resolution. It does recognize our common dignity. We take seriously the questions that some might raise about our perspectives, public positions, and programs. We believe critique of what we do is an opportunity for us all to learn.”

These insights can serve as an invitation to rethink about how your organization is communicating — especially when it comes to those who disagree with or criticize our work.

It’s surely not easy, but there is a path to continuing to advocate for and passionately defend what we stand for, but doing so without divisive rhetoric.

If not, we run a very real risk of not only failing to convince others to accept our views, but also losing something much greater.

Peter Panepento
Managing Partner
Peter@turn-two.co