5 tips for decreasing polarization

by | Jul 22, 2012 | Church | 1 comment

 Congress is now more polarized than at any time since Civil War Reconstruction. As we barrel toward a nasty presidential election, things will get even worse. Charles C. Camosy offers five practices for moving beyond the polarization which currently dominates our public discourse

…I propose five practices for moving beyond the polarization which currently dominates our public discourse:

• Humility. We are finite, flawed beings and are prone to making serious mistakes. We need to enter into discussions and arguments with this at the very front of our minds — not only in being comfortable with someone challenging our point of view, but also reserving the right to change our mind when our argument is shown to be problematic.

• Solidarity with our conversation partner. This involves active listening, presuming that one has something to learn, and (if possible) getting to know them personally beyond an abstraction. Never reduce another’s ideas because of their gender, race, level of privilege, sexual orientation, or social location. Similarly, never reduce them to what you suspect are their “secret personal motivations.” Instead, give your partner the courtesy of carefully responding to the actual idea or argument that she is offering for your consideration.

• Avoiding binary thinking. The issues that are seriously debated in our public sphere are almost always too complex to fit into simplistic categories like liberal/conservative, religious/secular, open/close-minded, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. Furthermore, it sets up framework in which taking one side automatically defines one against “the other side” — thus further limiting serious and open engagement.

• Avoiding fence-building and dismissive words and phrases. It might feel good to score these rhetorical points, but doing so is one of the major contributors to our polarized discourse. Let us simply stop using words and phrases like: radical feminist, war on women, neocon, limousine liberal, prude, heretic, tree-hugger, anti-science, anti-life, and so on. Instead, use language that engages and draws the other into a fruitful engage of ideas.

• Leading with what you are for. Not only is this the best way to make a convincing case for the view you currently hold, but this practice often reveals that we are actually after very similar things and simply need to be able to talk in an open and coherent way about the best plan for getting there.

Charles C. Camosy is assistant professor of Christian ethics at Fordham University in New York City and author of “Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization.” He can be reached at camosy@fordham.edu.

 

 

1 Comment

  1. Elizabeth D

    In the Gospels, Jesus notes that polarization regarding Him is inevitable; in the early Church the Didache (1st c) attests to a pedagogy about the “Way of Life” of Christians (including rejection of abortion and infanticide) versus the “Way of Death” the world follows. Glossing over this would mean glossing over the first-priority social justice concern, the right to life. There are certainly situations where points of common belief should be emphasized, but that would become completely absurd if someone emphasized, in the name of “decreasing polarization”, that Peter Singer and pro-lifers both believe a baby has the same moral status before and after birth, even though Peter Singer concludes that both abortion and infanticide are fine and sometimes morally necessary, while the Christians believe direct killing of a baby is always wrong before or after birth.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This