On any given Saturday or Sunday it will become clear who is
an ardent fan of any given football team.
The UT fans and OU fans and TAMU fans debate and jab and cajole; the
Cowboy fans and the Texans fans and the Patriot fans do the same. In such instances fans understand, I believe,
that there exist fans of teams other than the one they support. I have never heard even the most ardent of
Cowboy fans demand that all football fans support the Cowboys, or that to
support someone other than the Cowboys is somehow immoral or wrong. Fans recognize the right to fandom and the
right to support various teams and would not undo such fandom because they rub
shoulders every week with fans of different ilk. I further believe that fans have enough sense
to know that the entire sport of football exists only because there are different
fans. If everyone supported one team
there would only be one team and a sport could not long exist with only one
team. Multiple teams each with their own
supporters make the sport stronger, not weaker.
Other areas in our culture do not fare so well. Politics, religion, economics, patriotism,
etc., are support systems, fan systems and/or belief systems where the likelihood
of rubbing shoulders with contrarian views does not contribute to the overall
health of the debate and strength of the systems. Rather, such shoulder rubbing has become the
source of polarization, rancor and vitriol.
Why is that?
I think I know two reasons why.
First is the way we are taught to listen. There are at least two ways to listen. In what is the current most common way to
listen is listening for the purpose of finding flaw with an alternative view
and emitting support for a commonly shared view. Many folks listen as though nothing the
Democrats say or nothing the Republicans say could possibly be right. Listening to the party or philosophy that one
agrees with eliminates critical thinking skills and fact checking and listening
to the party or philosophy that one disagrees with promotes attack at every
point, every turn, and every position.
Such a listening approach has now become institutionalized by some media
sources and some pundits. Nothing the “other”
group says can possibly be right and flaws and exceptions are sought and
highlighted as though anyone who thinks that way must be an evil fool. We have now reached a point where failure to
agree with the perception and beliefs of the “boss” can result in termination.
The second way to listen is called active listening. As I hear what you say, or the media says, or
a politician says I attempt to understand their position, I seek the ability to
re-word their position in my own words.
I seek to understand what they are really saying. Once I am convinced I understand their
positions then and only then do I attempt to line up their reasoning with my own
thinking. Could their position have
merit? Do I need to fact check? Might this work? It is through this approach that our
positions are ameliorated and we grow stronger and wiser from the minds we may
most disagree with. If I admit up front
my position requires constant scrutiny then my position becomes more open. When I listen to opponents and supporters I
seek clarity. This type of thinking
remains in our culture, but typically is only found in families and in truly
collaborative teams in both private and public sectors.
The second reason contact with alternative views is
resulting in so much polarization is our tendency to interact mostly with folks
who think like we think. People of like
mind. If in your circle of friends and
contacts it is accepted as true that Obama was a terrible president, that believing
as a Christian believes is somehow how it ought to be, that patriotism trumps
civil rights, that unions are bad, and/or that liberals are sick people, you
are highly unlikely to engage in active listening when interacting with a
contrarian perspective. Psychologists
call this “false consensus”, that is that everyone I know thinks this way so if
you do not think like that you must be wrong.
The opposite, of course, is also true if one holds a liberal or atheist
position and comes in contact with conservatives. Because we surround ourselves with folks of
like thinking we assume there is a rightness, a correctness to our
thoughts. Everyone should believe this
way because everyone I know believes this way.
It is a false consensus rightness.
I have been “unfriended” because I think differently. What a sad state of affairs is that? It means we literally do not want to even
hear the other side. I have FB “friends”
who will post a positional piece and say right up front if anyone disagrees
they do not want to hear it.
Really? How will you know if your
position is valid without critique? Without
input from other positions? Without
disputing facts? To hold such a
defensive position is also consensus rightness.
I am right. You are wrong. You must be a fool, or worse, evil.
This false consensus breeds upon continuing contact with
only one point of view. Conservatives
only watch Fox News. Liberals only watch
MSNBC. No one likes CNN or CBS or NBC or
ABC, the networks consistently shown to be fair and open-minded. We have even adopted a new term, “fake news”
implying that anything that disagrees with my position must be wrong or
fabricated. We go to church and sit in
pews with people who think like we think and may even hear messages from the
pulpit perpetrating a given philosophy.
We go to football games and lean on the tailgates of other like-minded
folks and take pleasure in lambasting those fools who think else wise. We join social organizations based on the philosophical
bent of the members, even if the club moto first asks, “Is it the truth?” We do not want contact with thinkers and
believers of alternative perspective.
Until we break down some of these barriers we are doomed to
continue down this road toward a divided nation. I see two solutions. Active listening is one. That is a skill that can be taught and
practiced.
The other is to seek out folks of alternative perspective
and talk with them. Speaking to my Texas
audience I wonder how many of you have actually had a conversation with a
liberal, or an atheist, or a Muslim or read the literature supporting both
philosophies? Not many I suspect. If you feel the need to shun such folks you
are part of the problem, not the solution.
Speaking to my national and international audience how many of you have
sat with conservatives and religious fundamentalists and truly sought to
understand their belief systems? It is
past time to begin such efforts.
I am encouraged by some new bipartisan efforts in Congress. I am encouraged by the words of some
nationally recognized conservatives who are now criticizing both “groupthink”
and “my way or the highway” sort of thinking.
I am encouraged that the NRA is opposing bump fire stocks.
But we have a long way to go. Seek out a person who holds a different
perspective, or do a Google or You Tube search and really listen, actively
listen. Do not listen so that you can
quickly argue the point. You will find,
I believe, that those other folks are not evil, and you will find that they may
have something to say worth considering, and you will find that your own
perspective is more thoughtful, more rational and more hopeful.
I further believe that if more and more of us did this, more
and more of us would slowly alter our perspectives from entrenched to
enlightened. Facts will move us forward,
science will move us forward. Moving forward
to openness is hopeful. Remaining stuck
in our own dogma is damning.
