Column: Will we ever talk to each other again?

Thanksgiving is coming on the heels of the presidential election. A lot of families are nervous about how to make civilized conversation when the results will cause one side jubilation and another side despair.

Over the years, many American families have tacitly agreed not to “talk politics.” That makes for bearable Thanksgiving (and Christmas) dinners, but it also erodes relationships when suspicion, contempt, and misunderstandings are running so deep.

These families have become a microcosm for the country.

People say that this is a new phenomenon in America. While it may have reached a different level of intensity, it’s not new. I remember my high school graduation in 1970 when the 17-year-old valedictorian gave a speech condemning the war in Vietnam. Many parents in the audience walked out. And not to lose sight of history, there once was a war where 800,000 Americans lost their lives fighting against each other. And after it was over, a sore loser assassinated the president.

Many sociological experiments over the years have demonstrated how it is comfortable for people to affiliate with their own groups and demonize outsiders. In the “Robbers Cave” experiment in the 1950’s, two separate groups of 12-year-old boys went to summer camp without knowledge of the other group. When the researchers put the two groups together, there was so much hostility that the adults needed to separate them to cool them off. This was a real-life “Lord of the Flies” situation. And the kids were all white, middle-class Protestants!

The researchers then tried numerous conflict resolution techniques to bring the groups together. The only one that worked was when they forced the two groups to work together to achieve a common goal.

What happened in that experiment (and is all too common) was that the way to bond and feel included was by “othering” those from outside the group. We all know this from junior high school, but unfortunately it continues in various ways into adulthood.

While this kind of cruelty has always been true, using social media to hide behind ugly insults has made things worse and more divisive. People form “silos” and never have to deal directly with the other side.

Monica Guzman, in her excellent book, “I Never Thought of it That Way,” discusses a survey taken in 2018 asking Democrats and Republicans to estimate what the other side thought about hot button issues.

The results were that the Democrats were off by 19 percentage points when estimating Republican views, and the Republicans were off by 27 percentage points when estimating Democratic views. Each thought that the most extreme versions of the other group were the norm, when apparently it was far from it.

“Othering” makes us distort reality and causes us to believe that the opposite camp consists of not only bad viewpoints but bad people.

According to social scientists, “bridging” is the way to begin to remedy the gulf between the silos. But how you “bridge” is crucial. Guzman says that the more people mingle with “otherized” groups, the less hostility people will feel toward them. And the first step is getting to know them as people, and not through their causes or beliefs.

Attending social and community events is the best first step. Here on Shelter Island, we’re lucky to have non-political activities and causes where people on opposite sides of the political divide can be friendly and like each other. That is less true in other parts of the country. For example, where I live in Greenwich Village, we do not have a lot of divergent political views and attending this kind of event might be a challenge.

As people get to know and like each other, they may tentatively begin talking about things, not as “issues,” but as real people who are affected by decisions and situations they can’t control. One side may fear migrants while the other side fears guns. They probably disagree, but to “bridge” is to listen.

In Stone, Patten and Heen’s book, “Difficult Conversations,” the authors discuss the difference between the “learning” and the “persuading” conversation. When each side is trying to convince the other that their viewpoint is correct, no one is going to change. But by trying to understand how that person came to their position, we may have a better understanding of who they are as a person. 

First, we may learn that our information sources are completely different. That can be maddening when we have no faith in those other sources. But it does inform us of how they came to believe what they perceive as true. And once again, rather than reduce the issues to sound bites, we can discuss how they affect real people and communities.

Having a productive conversation must involve mutuality. Here I defer to “Crucial Conversations” (Patterson et al). To have a difficult conversation requires mutuality of purpose. If both people are working toward a common outcome in the conversation and demonstrate that they care about each other’s goals, interests, and values (even if they don’t agree with them), chances are that a successful conversation can take place.

Then to continue the discussion, mutual respect is crucial. This may be difficult these days when people’s beliefs can sound quite bizarre. The trick is to respect the person, even if you do not respect their position.

People come to their positions with hopes, fears, and concerns behind them. If they are being told that migrants will take their jobs, this feeds into the fear that they will be unemployed. However, if they are being told (and believe) that migrants are eating people’s pets, that is a more difficult, if not impossible, reach.

Guzman suggests that getting to people’s positions requires understanding how they got there — not why they believe what they believe, but how did they come to believe it. That means finding out their personal stories. Ask for details so that their stories become more relatable. And, hopefully, this will become a reciprocal exercise and you will also be better understood.

Understandably, this is all quite difficult in a time where we are so polarized.  And it may seem like a lot of work. But to maintain relationships rather than allow them to fall into estrangement, a commitment to do the work should exist on both sides.

A Nigerian proverb states: “In the moment of a crisis, the wise build bridges and the foolish build dams.”

May your holiday dinners be filled with bridges and not dams.