There is a lot to unpack here and I haven’t read any of the studies or your long form works. The central premise has strong echoes aspects of Daoist philosophy. Short hand, striving too hard for a thing can bring about its opposite. I suspect you are aware of this but, if not, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s exploration of Daoism. There are likely aspects of it that may make some connections for you. I’ll post a link below to an essay by LeGuin in 2016 that embodies some of these concepts (LeGuin was a self-professed Daoist).
I believe that the two party political system, and even the existence of parties, is an aggravating force that perpetuates divisions. We have, for example, been fighting over Roe v. Wade for decades yet neither party talks about what was a Solomonic compromise (no pun intended) on the issue. It benefitted both political parties for this divisive issue to be a bipolar issue (Pro-life/Pro-choice). Voter behavior since its repeal indicates that when the influence of political parties is removed there is the ability to reach a political accord that satisfies enough people to be stable (essentially the Roe framework). I fear that bipolarization is a structural defect more than an interpersonal failing.
I do question whether you are swimming upstream against humanity’s basic tribal instincts. People gain meaning and identity from tribal membership. A tribe, however, always needs “not tribe” to maintain its cohesion. For many many people their polarized political identity is a key component of their self-identity.
Last point, though I could probably go on, is that viewing conflict as a negative thing tends to paradoxically perpetuate conflict. This is founded in mediation theory and practices. A good high level primer on these ideas would be the work of Amanda Ripley and the “good conflict” group she co-leads. Her book “High Conflict” uses stories and examples to explore her ideas.
This article gives excellent examples of relationship reciprocity. One alternative to persuasion attempts that polarize goes like this: If and only if the other is receptive, present views in terms of "This is how I see it and what i base my opinion on. Others see it differently and have their reasons. What do you think?" The "metamesssage" is to replace "I'm going to change you" with "Let's say what we think and be open to new ideas and information."
Thanks, Carl. And nice to meet you (just followed you). What you say is something I think about a lot. That's something I included in this blog post for Builders (aka Starts With Us): https://startswith.us/2024/11/20/3-tips-keeping-thanksgiving-talks-tension-free/. An emphasis on signaling that your goal isn't to change minds; not even for persuasion purposes, but even just to set the groundwork for de-escalated, calmer conversations. Thanks for your tips/ideas; always appreciate comments like this as they prompt me to think about new things.
You might want to take a look at Bowen Natural Systems Theory for some behavioral science theory that is foundational for this approach. These two websites are a resource: https://www.wpfc.net/theory/ and https://www.thebowencenter.org/.
There is a lot to unpack here and I haven’t read any of the studies or your long form works. The central premise has strong echoes aspects of Daoist philosophy. Short hand, striving too hard for a thing can bring about its opposite. I suspect you are aware of this but, if not, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s exploration of Daoism. There are likely aspects of it that may make some connections for you. I’ll post a link below to an essay by LeGuin in 2016 that embodies some of these concepts (LeGuin was a self-professed Daoist).
I believe that the two party political system, and even the existence of parties, is an aggravating force that perpetuates divisions. We have, for example, been fighting over Roe v. Wade for decades yet neither party talks about what was a Solomonic compromise (no pun intended) on the issue. It benefitted both political parties for this divisive issue to be a bipolar issue (Pro-life/Pro-choice). Voter behavior since its repeal indicates that when the influence of political parties is removed there is the ability to reach a political accord that satisfies enough people to be stable (essentially the Roe framework). I fear that bipolarization is a structural defect more than an interpersonal failing.
I do question whether you are swimming upstream against humanity’s basic tribal instincts. People gain meaning and identity from tribal membership. A tribe, however, always needs “not tribe” to maintain its cohesion. For many many people their polarized political identity is a key component of their self-identity.
Last point, though I could probably go on, is that viewing conflict as a negative thing tends to paradoxically perpetuate conflict. This is founded in mediation theory and practices. A good high level primer on these ideas would be the work of Amanda Ripley and the “good conflict” group she co-leads. Her book “High Conflict” uses stories and examples to explore her ideas.
https://www.ursulakleguin.com/blog/119-the-election-lao-tzu-a-cup-of-water
This article gives excellent examples of relationship reciprocity. One alternative to persuasion attempts that polarize goes like this: If and only if the other is receptive, present views in terms of "This is how I see it and what i base my opinion on. Others see it differently and have their reasons. What do you think?" The "metamesssage" is to replace "I'm going to change you" with "Let's say what we think and be open to new ideas and information."
Thanks, Carl. And nice to meet you (just followed you). What you say is something I think about a lot. That's something I included in this blog post for Builders (aka Starts With Us): https://startswith.us/2024/11/20/3-tips-keeping-thanksgiving-talks-tension-free/. An emphasis on signaling that your goal isn't to change minds; not even for persuasion purposes, but even just to set the groundwork for de-escalated, calmer conversations. Thanks for your tips/ideas; always appreciate comments like this as they prompt me to think about new things.
You might want to take a look at Bowen Natural Systems Theory for some behavioral science theory that is foundational for this approach. These two websites are a resource: https://www.wpfc.net/theory/ and https://www.thebowencenter.org/.
Will definitely check that out. Thank you!