Political polarization is not only a problem of the US’ two-party system. Populism and the rise of right wing parties all over the world is contributing immensely to divided societies. There are divides on local, national, and international levels. Black Lives Matter versus Blue Lives Matter, right-wing versus mainstream politicians, China versus US.
Communication between opposite sides seems more and more difficult. This is very visible on social media, where objective discussions quickly turn into personal fights and streams of insults. It would be easy to blame this on anonymity in social media and move on. But discussion lies at the very heart of our democracy and therefore it is critical that we enable inclusive communication to save our society.
The first big challenge for productive discussions is that a small minority can derail the whole conversation. One person shouting personal insults at any participating person can spiral into a shouting match, leaving the whole discussion invalidated. Therefore, it is vital that all participants agree and act according to a set of rules. When someone breaks these rules, it is up to all other participants to enforce the rules.
But that’s not the only common ground that needs to be found. People’s experience and data set is often very subjective. A person living in a polluted city sees empirical consequences of environmental pollution every day while someone in the countryside might base their opinion on green pastures and blue skies.
The way communication works is also very personal. While for some, science is the objective pursuit of reproducible knowledge, while for others, it’s something to believe in instead of the bible. When these two opposites discuss scientific findings, how could they ever agree on the meaning of it?
Sometimes, language is ambiguous and each discussion participant will interpret the other’s words for his own use. When a mainstream politician in the US talks about de-funding the police, do they actually mean to withdraw all money and get rid of the police? That is what the other party will claim they have said. The meaning of such statement is mostly just that some funds should be redirected to more effective services.
The list of political discussions containing ambiguous and (purposely) misinterpreted statements is endless. Scholars of communication have plenty of models and concepts that explain the difficulties in communicating with each other.
If people were better at understanding the opposite’s perspective, many misunderstandings could go away. Hearing someone say that environmental pollution is harmful changes completely, when one considers that that person might struggle with excessive smog levels every day. Discussing scientific results changes when one considers that science is just another worldview, often conflicting religious worldviews. Talking about de-funding the police becomes much more reasonable if the goal is to redirect funds to more effective services.
In order to get there, we have to get much better at opening up ourselves to other perspectives and asking ourselves, what the other person’s experience or data set is. What have they experienced that makes them have this opinion? What motivates their opinion? What do they know that I do not know?
This is something that can be learned. Many students going on exchange for a certain period of time, learn to understand different cultures and perspectives and also learn to see their own assumptions more critically. One of the most peace-bringing measures to reduce national and international conflicts might be to send every teenager to a foreign country for at least 6 months.
The sad truth is that there are always people benefiting from conflict. Politicians often benefit from creating a conflict with another group of people. It is up to us to be better than that. If we manage to create productive and inclusive discussions, we can even put an end to politicians trying to exploit conflict.
I do ask myself regularly: If I had grown up in a terrorist camp, would I have become a terrorist? That shows that opinion and persuasion depends so much on the environment and insulting someone as stupid doesn’t help. Instead we need to ask: Why do they think in this particular way? What have they experienced in their life that makes them think in a certain way? What do they mean when they make a statement? Only then, we can start a productive discussion and strengthen democracy.
EDIT: This tiktok video pretty much sums it up:
https://www.tiktok.com/@txwatson/video/6853048946307222790
Freakonomics tried to clear up one of the misunderstandings by explaining the meaning of socialism. Important lesson for everyone discussing politics (especially in the US):