Today, nearly all Americans reside in neighborhoods that are effectively segregated by race or political party.
Today, nearly all Americans reside in neighborhoods that are effectively segregated by race or political party.
A merica is a delicate experiment of a multiracial, multireligious, multi-factional democracy, and pluralism — recognizing and validating difference — has always been crucial to fulfilling its promise.
But recently, American pluralism has been strained by the reorientation of our political debate to social issues tightly tethered to matters of personal identity and sacred beliefs. Beneath America’s intensifying discussions about race, immigration, gender identity, sexuality, and religion, Americans are grappling with the fundamental question of: “Who are we?”
Accordingly, political debate now has an increasingly existential quality, and we have witnessed spikes in political- and identity-based violence and a growing appetite for anti-democratic tactics designed to silence or disempower opponents. Political sides have sought to establish the hegemony of their worldview — a sense of security in a world of instability and demographic change.
Our democratic institutions are now caught between officials desperately trying to uphold antecedent value systems and those questioning the idea of establishing any national values at all. And so, where pluralism once entailed the mere tolerance of diverse people, today it entails accommodating and sometimes yielding to them in national civic life.
How do we cultivate the recognition and validation of values that we may believe threaten the integrity of our republic?
To answer this, political psychologist Tyler Reny and I reviewed over 200 studies that tested attempts to cultivate pluralism or explored the political and social consequences of pluralism and division. Our recommendation is pretty simple: Drive 50 miles in just about any direction and schmooze.
Today, nearly all Americans reside in neighborhoods that are effectively segregated by race, or political party, and we reinforce this isolation thanks to internet algorithms that feed us what we want to read. In particular, political party — now a more meaningful source of division than race or religion for many people — is reflected by the concentration of progressives in blue urban centers and conservatives in the red hinterland. So, driving out of or into the nearest major metropolitan area will place you into contact with people different from you, and our research has found that this is where progress is made.
“Contact theory” — first proposed in the 1950s — has shown that contact between people from different social groups can promote tolerance and acceptance among them, particularly when this contact takes place between members of groups of equal status and when experienced in pursuit of common goals. Think of integrated schools and workplaces, a diverse basketball team, or charity work in different neighborhoods.
It appears to be even more powerful when people observe convivial, respectful contact between the leaders of two otherwise opposed groups or when leaders set tolerant, peaceful social norms for others to follow. Imagine if Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden shared a bucket of fried chicken and took in a football game together.
Of course, this isn’t a cure-all for the challenges American democracy currently faces. The pluralist effect is not guaranteed. Interventions directed at ethnic or racial prejudice generate substantially weaker effects than those focusing on other characteristics like disability. And the most reliable studies primarily focus on young adults.
However, when you’re in these conversations, there are ways to find common ground.
First, cast yourself as a fellow lover of country music or a fellow Christian, as relevant to the context — not as a Republican or Democrat. A recent meta-analysis of psychological interventions to reduce polarization found that highlighting shared cross-partisan identities was among the most effective tool in reducing partisan animosity.
Second, tell stories. Don’t try to persuade. Researchers find that because personal experiences are seen as truer than facts, they furnish the appearance of rationality in opponents, which in turn increases respect — especially when you share stories of struggle and harm.
Third, empathize. Studies have shown the positive effects of “perspective-getting” — which entails hearing about the experiences of an outgroup member from that person or from others — and “perspective taking” — which entails imagining an experience from the perspective of an outgroup member. Yes, it’s basic, but it works.
Statistically speaking, you’ll probably find someone amenable.
Most Americans are not deeply politically polarized; they do not hate people from the opposing party or support political violence or extreme policies. In fact, a majority of Americans do not even pay that much attention to politics, don’t know much about politics, and are not particularly partisan or ideological.
The majority of Americans aren’t bigoted either. In recent years, for example, the endorsement of racial and ethnic stereotypes measurably dropped among both Democrats and Republicans.
And Americans are generally not blinded by propaganda either. Research finds that a majority of Americans aren’t solely consuming ideologically slanted news sites and that “fake news” is heavily produced and consumed by just a tiny sliver of the population.
Still, you are probably thinking, “One conversation at a time may be a nice slogan, but it’s not a feasible political strategy.”
This is why it is important that public, private, and nonprofit institutions also facilitate intergroup contact, particularly in interactions where participants are on equal footing and pursue collective goals.
Doing so leverages the propensity of individuals to naturally seek common purpose and identify their shared humanity. They also have the added advantage of “meeting people where they are,” rather than requiring them to change the way they lead their lives.
It’s true that the most rigorous evidence of the benefits of contact reveal relatively small effects, and these benefits still have limitations. But a small amount of pluralism multiplied across millions of people in multiple contexts would produce a more cohesive and less polarized country within a few election cycles.
So hit the road.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy and made available via RealClearWire.