We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:
- SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
- BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
- TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
- BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
- FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
- FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
- “CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
- “TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.
This week . . . as graduation season winds down, it’s a good time to recall David Foster Wallace’s cautionary reminder in his 2005 commencement address at Kenyon College – that the close-mindedness of both atheist and religious dogmatists “amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn’t even know he’s locked up.” This applies to political dogmatists as well. It’s hard enough to recognize (or at least admit) the damage polarization does to the exchange of ideas that constitutes democratic freedom—especially when you’re caught up in one side or the other of the screaming match. But it’s even harder to recognize what it does to you. It imprisons you. A quick test: Pick out the most infuriating (for you) political story from today’s paper and just try giving the “other side” the benefit of the doubt and finding some element that you can at least sympathize with. And ask yourself: how much is the difficulty in doing so a measure of how terrible the “other side” is vs. how walled off you have allowed yourself to genuinely listening to and weighing other views? The measure of how hard it is to consider an opposing view is the measure of the victory of the polarizers.
When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?
Here are just a few of the week’s polarizing headlines, from the left and right:
