Working to overcome polarization

What can we do to work against and overcome polarization? In IDC terms, the next stage after Polarization is Minimization, which is characterized by focusing more on what we have in common with others than on the differences. This essentially represents a less negative experience of difference, as we discover the “common humanity” of those who differ from us. In our study abroad program (in the Middle East, in an Arab Muslim majority setting), this happens as our Christian, mostly anglo American and Canadian students begin meeting and relating to Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Palestinians, and others (these categories obviously have some overlap with each other).

Our students meet people in different contexts – we have local people come in as speakers, talking about various aspects of Islam, local culture, politics, social issues, etc.; we arrange meetings with local young people, with both organized and informal interaction, and hanging out talking and getting to know each other; we do homestays with local families, during which our students have the opportunity to experience something of daily life with “regular” people; our students have the opportunity to observe prayer in a mosque as well as to attend a church service in Arabic; and of course there is the daily opportunity to interact with people on the streets, in shops, taking taxis, hanging in coffee shops, etc.

These opportunities, with a focus on learning and understanding – through interaction, asking questions, listening carefully – are at the heart of our students’ experience of “humanizing” the very different “others” they meet on their sojourn in the Middle East. These relational opportunities are transformational – as we “draw near” to others who are different than we are, they become “real” to us, comprehensible, relatable. We may not “agree” with them (about one thing or another – views of God, or of politics, or whatever), but we can understand and appreciate (beyond Minimization, this is a move into Acceptance – i.e., accepting others as the real and equally human beings that they are, different from ourselves but equally worthy of respect, understanding, etc.).

This is very difficult and challenging, and requires great intentionality and effort. We don’t “naturally” seek out relationship with those who are different from us, and especially not with those with whom we are polarizing. But the question is, do we want to overcome polarization? Do we want to learn to get along with, to live positively with, those who are different than we are?

If we do want this, the way forward is somewhat “simple” (though admittedly difficult) – we can work to overcome polarizing over difference by seeking relationship with those who are different than we are (here’s a life principle for you: the harder it is for you to understand an individual or a group, the more you need to pursue this approach with that individual or group). Seeking relationship involves seeking understanding, to enter in to the world of the other, their values, perspectives, etc. And this is the path of humanizing others, and coming to experience them much more positively.

Do you see the problem (of polarization)? Would you like to experience difference (and those who most frustrate you) more positively? Are you up for the challenge? It’s doable…consider finding someone “different,” whose views and perspectives you disagree with / don’t understand, and simply saying, “could we talk? I’d like to get to know you, and to understand your views of (/values in regard to)…”

Polarized and Polarizing Times

It’s not hard to recognize that we live in polarized and increasingly polarizing times. As an American, I’ll reflect on the U.S. context, but it’s not hard to see these trends and tendencies elsewhere.

The Polarization stage of experiencing difference, according to the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC), is characterized by a negative experience of difference. In Polarization, we are threatened by difference; we stereotype our own (values, ways of being, etc.) as good and right, and other ways as bad, wrong, incomprehensible, even alien – and we push away the difference, and build walls or trenches to keep the negative, threatening differences away from us. We express a polarized response to difference when we react by thinking of others as “idiots” for their views or practices; when we find ourselves thinking things like, “I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would…” (think or do such and such); or when we say things like, “I can’t believe those people could…” (again, fill in the blank – think a certain way, act a certain way, etc.).

In the U.S. these days, polarization is happening all over the place – around pro-life/pro-choice, “Black Lives Matter,” women’s rights issues (whether there is an issue, for example; the “egalitarian”/“complementarian” debate in certain Christian circles regarding women in leadership; and more), “liberal”/“conservative,” LGBTQ issues, and of course, pro-Trump/anti-Trump. On any of these, it’s easy to see and hear people talking with exasperation about “those people” (on the other side).

Polarization is essentially a negative phenomenon, i.e., it has a negative impact on individuals and society. When we polarize, pushing away from others, and building walls of various kinds (in our minds and hearts, or otherwise), we grow distant from those others we disagree with and find hard to understand, which leads to even less understanding (and to greater misunderstanding). Along with this there is a tendency to “dehumanize” those different others – to consider them less human than “we who have the right views or practices.” Polarization also tends to be accompanied by fighting those others who we disagree with (whether verbally, politically, socially, etc. – in the extreme, we go to war).

As the Arab proverb says, “who is ignorant of something, becomes at enmity with it.” Polarization both grows from and increases ignorance of and enmity with, different others. And raises an urgent question, in the U.S. (and other) context(s), of how we can live together in society, in a way that is positive for everyone (“with liberty and justice for all,” in theory), when we have growing ignorance and enmity between significant groups of people, along multiple fault lines?

If we recognize that we are experiencing polarization, and want to grow beyond this essentially negative way of experiencing difference, what can we do? Stay tuned for more…

How ethnocentrism hinders love of neighbor (part II) - defense

The second stage in Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity is defense.  As someone moves from a lack of awareness of difference (the denial stage, see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/02/loving-our-neighbor-insights-from.html) into more contact with cultural difference, the initial experience and reaction is often negative.  Differences, at this stage, are perceived as threatening to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity, and a common reaction is to try to preserve the absoluteness of one’s worldview, in the fact of the growing awareness of difference.

Defense is characterized by polarization (“us” vs. “them”), and by a positive stereotyping of one’s own culture and identity, and a negative stereotyping of the other. Bennett refers to the negative view of the other as denigration – negative stereotyping based on race, religion, age, gender, or any other assumed indicator of difference. He refers to the positive sense of self as superiority – positive evaluation of one’s own status, with the idea that everything has evolved and will evolve in our direction (the sense of ourselves as “civilized,” etc.).

Note that defense is the predominant orientation of nation-building and nationalism. And that it deepens in times of conflict between peoples, e.g., the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the conflict between Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians in the former Yugoslavia, between Muslims and Christians post-9/11, etc. (I remember my shock, the first time I returned to the U.S. post-9/11, to see Christmas light decorations in the shape and colors of the American flag, and all the “God bless America” bumper stickers everywhere.)

Note also that at the defense stage, the "knowledge" of the other is shallow and superficial. There is an Arab proverb, "he who is ignorant of something, is its enemy." We can most easily negatively stereotype and believe the worst about others, when we do not know them, when we do not have personal relationship with them. Most of the Americans that I know, that are most suspicious of Muslims and of Islam, do not have friendships, or even basic relationships, with Muslims.

Bennett notes a variation on the polarization of the defense stage, which he refers to as reversal – the denigration of one’s own culture, and assumption of the superiority of a different culture. Although this may look more positive toward another culture than defense normally does, it is “only changing the center of ethnocentrism.” Reversal is common for people who go abroad and begin adapting to another culture, like Peace Corps volunteers. It can also occur for anyone who gets involved with another group of people and takes up “their cause.”

It is probably fairly self-evident why and how being at the defense stage, hinders love of neighbor. Again, love of neighbor requires relationship, building something positive together, coexistence. A sense of one’s own superiority, while denigrating the different other, is a serious roadblock to loving one’s neighbor. Whether it is Israeli Jews thinking of Palestinians as “dirty Arabs,” “terrorists,” etc., or Americans wondering “what’s wrong with those Muslims, that they are always so violent,” the negative stereotyping of others – especially in situations of conflict, in which love of neighbor is most necessary –  makes it hard to move in that direction.

In fact, defense actually embodies hatred of our neighbor, pushing them away, disrespecting and mistreating, etc.  The danger, if we continue on the “downward” slide of defense, is that we will end up at the point of villainization and dehumanization of the other. The end of this ugly road is the possibility of doing anything to the other, including ethnic cleansing and extermination, with no twinge of conscience. And obviously, this is not the road of loving one’s neighbor.

     

Why did Jesus use the Samaritan as the example of love of neighbor, when asked “who is my neighbor?” He chose the example of the people whom the Jews at that time had the worst relationship with, characterized by superiority, denigration, and avoidance; characterized, in fact, by hatred. And Jesus’ point was that those that they most disliked, are the ones that they must learn to love, if they are to fulfill God’s command to love their neighbor.

We cannot live in a state of feeling threatened by those who are different from us, and fulfill Jesus’ command to love our neighbor. We cannot allow ourselves to dwell in “us” / “them” thinking, where we are always criticizing “those people,” and love our neighbor. We cannot take pride in our own superiority, and denigrate those different others, and love our neighbor. And most obviously, we cannot embrace the demonization and dehumanization of others, and love our neighbor.

If we want to fulfill Jesus’ command to love our neighbor, we must move beyond the ethnocentric stage of defense.

(Coming next: how minimization hinders love of neighbor)

*For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.

Can People of Faith Rise Above Tribalism? Reflections on the occasion of the remembrance of 9/11

(I meant to post this on 9/11, but my computer crashed, and I only now regained access to my documents.)

In another post on the site “Not the Religious Type,” the author refers to a recent NY Times editorial by Stanley Fish (see http://notreligious.typepad.com/notreligious/2010/09/their-kooks-are-representative-our-kooks-are-lone-nuts.html#more and http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/weve-seen-this-movie-before/?pagemode=print). In his editorial, Fish points out the double standard used to discuss violent acts by or against members of a religious community, and concludes the following:

“The formula is simple and foolproof (although those who deploy it so facilely seem to think we are all fools): If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.”

What is going on here, I think, is something which we humans easily and naturally slip into, a kind of tribalism whereby we assume the best of those who are part of our people, and read their actions in light of our own best values (and with a generous dose of excusing and explaining away bad behavior), but assume the worst of those who are part of a different group, especially during times of conflict and tension between the communities.

(In terms of a model developed by Bennett – his “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” – which explains how people progress in their experience of cultural difference, this would fall into the second phase, “Defense,” in which people have a negative experience of difference, and tend to generalize and polarize and talk in “us”/“them” terms, where the “us” is generalized positively and the “them” is generalized negatively. More on the DMIS another time.)

The ability to assume the best of our people and the worst of others is rooted, I think, in lack of self-awareness in the first instance (glossing over how bad “we” are and can be) and ignorance of the others in the second instance. When we don’t know people from the “different” group, it is easy to assume the worst of them.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus would encourage us to be bigger than our tribal allegiances. (As a human being, I would hope that any religious faith would encourage those who follow it, in this same direction.) In illustration of his most important teaching, that the two great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves, he told a parable of a despised Samaritan (whom his Jewish listeners would have nothing to do with, and through whose territory they would not even pass) helping a wounded Jew who was abandoned by the road side. And he himself not only passed through Samaria, he stopped and conversed with a Samaritan woman, someone who would have been looked at by Jewish men as a non-person. By his teachings and by his example, Jesus showed us that God’s perspective on humanity is different than the tribalism we so easily embrace.

My question is, can we – not just Christians, but people of any faith – rise above our tribalism (which is worse when wrapped up with religion – which happens with people of all religions) and learn to relate to other human beings who are not members of our tribe, as if they were people also created in the image of God? And can we defuse the generalizing and polarizing, and work toward a more accurate understanding of those of other groups, that can only come as we enter into relationship with those others?