I've been making a point to always show some empathy for those opposed to my views in any of my essays lately. And also drop the sarcasm. While it might feel good for me in the short term, it does nothing in the long term.
I can save all of those clever lines for fiction. My characters can have flaws without those coming across as opinions I'm trying to push onto others!
I think about that a lot, too: the role that fiction/art play in this. This is something from my How Contempt Destroys Democracy book (which was for a liberal/anti-Trump audience but a version of it is in both my books), you might appreciate:
If you’re a writer, artist, social media influencer, or other creator, you might look for ways to incorporate depolarization-aimed ideas in your work. Political messages in creative projects are often aimed at denigrating the other side in various ways. We have no shortage of that kind of thing. A lot of this art, even when it comes from a place of compassion, communicates a message that liberals are nice and wise and conservatives are backwards and mean. As such, much of this content is an accelerant of polarization.
Creative people are skilled at weaving dramatic and eloquent narratives about the “good” and “bad” people. In their desire to create art that contains moral lessons, they can be unintentional contributors to our divides. We should remember that just because something is eloquent and capable of arousing exciting emotions it isn’t necessarily true. We may see an artistic message as meaningful simply because it aligns with our biases and distorted views.
If you’re a creative person who wants to reduce toxic polarization, perhaps you can brainstorm projects that would include these ideas and have a cultural impact. I can imagine all sorts of novels, TV shows, movies, and online media projects that could incorporate these ideas in ways that would keep people entertained while communicating lessons about the nature of our divides.
For those aspiring to be artists, writers, and creators, maybe you can see how that desire doesn’t need to be about making the things we traditionally think of as art: paintings, fiction, movies, and such. Maybe that’s a limited view of what art is and can be. The underlying point of art, after all, is to communicate, to influence, and to change people’s perceptions. That can be done in many ways, including creating projects aimed at bridge-building, empathy-building, and reducing polarization.
Maybe part of our problem is that so much of our artistic energy, as a culture, is devoted to the more popular and ego-boosting forms of art rather than art that is difficult, that challenges us, that brings us together, and that tries to solve real-world problems. Perhaps we should try to expand our idea of what art is and can be.
If enough people start believing in and promoting these ideas, that will start a feedback cycle where influential people — journalists, politicians, pundits — start talking more about these ideas, which in turn will get other citizens talking about them. Polarization grows via a vicious feedback cycle and we can try to combat it with a virtuous feedback cycle.
It’s a harder challenge, but it is something I like to think about. I always screen my work for if it sounds “preachy” and in my most recent book, I’ve been experimenting with a large cast of POV characters and making sure I show all sides.
I can’t be Atlas. But I can take the steps to make sure my protagonists are individuals, not leeching devices or emblematic models. While they can express more flaws or a more biased point of view, you’re right that I need to make sure I portray these as obstacles for them to overcome. My most recent protagonist starts off in a very radical viewpoint but I’ve got to put some keen attention on making sure those outside of him aren’t acting how he assumes. Maybe the lengthy set of chapters where he reconnects with his old friends once he’s in a better place isn’t something I need to cut after all…
It’s definitely a difficult line to walk. Because I don’t want to exhaust myself or spread myself so thin I feel like I can’t say anything, but I don’t want to be a radical preacher either. Good writing is a story that someone can relate to but also one that has nuance.
While I don’t like every one of my pieces have some grand purpose, you’re making me less insecure about some of the short stories I’ve kept in my back pocket.
Congratulations! We need your writing more than ever now. “….our toxic divides are part of a self-reinforcing cycle—that the hostile, contemptuous behaviors of both political groups contribute to the very extremity on the “other side” that bothers them.”
I've been making a point to always show some empathy for those opposed to my views in any of my essays lately. And also drop the sarcasm. While it might feel good for me in the short term, it does nothing in the long term.
I can save all of those clever lines for fiction. My characters can have flaws without those coming across as opinions I'm trying to push onto others!
I think about that a lot, too: the role that fiction/art play in this. This is something from my How Contempt Destroys Democracy book (which was for a liberal/anti-Trump audience but a version of it is in both my books), you might appreciate:
If you’re a writer, artist, social media influencer, or other creator, you might look for ways to incorporate depolarization-aimed ideas in your work. Political messages in creative projects are often aimed at denigrating the other side in various ways. We have no shortage of that kind of thing. A lot of this art, even when it comes from a place of compassion, communicates a message that liberals are nice and wise and conservatives are backwards and mean. As such, much of this content is an accelerant of polarization.
Creative people are skilled at weaving dramatic and eloquent narratives about the “good” and “bad” people. In their desire to create art that contains moral lessons, they can be unintentional contributors to our divides. We should remember that just because something is eloquent and capable of arousing exciting emotions it isn’t necessarily true. We may see an artistic message as meaningful simply because it aligns with our biases and distorted views.
If you’re a creative person who wants to reduce toxic polarization, perhaps you can brainstorm projects that would include these ideas and have a cultural impact. I can imagine all sorts of novels, TV shows, movies, and online media projects that could incorporate these ideas in ways that would keep people entertained while communicating lessons about the nature of our divides.
For those aspiring to be artists, writers, and creators, maybe you can see how that desire doesn’t need to be about making the things we traditionally think of as art: paintings, fiction, movies, and such. Maybe that’s a limited view of what art is and can be. The underlying point of art, after all, is to communicate, to influence, and to change people’s perceptions. That can be done in many ways, including creating projects aimed at bridge-building, empathy-building, and reducing polarization.
Maybe part of our problem is that so much of our artistic energy, as a culture, is devoted to the more popular and ego-boosting forms of art rather than art that is difficult, that challenges us, that brings us together, and that tries to solve real-world problems. Perhaps we should try to expand our idea of what art is and can be.
If enough people start believing in and promoting these ideas, that will start a feedback cycle where influential people — journalists, politicians, pundits — start talking more about these ideas, which in turn will get other citizens talking about them. Polarization grows via a vicious feedback cycle and we can try to combat it with a virtuous feedback cycle.
Thank you for your thoughts!
It’s a harder challenge, but it is something I like to think about. I always screen my work for if it sounds “preachy” and in my most recent book, I’ve been experimenting with a large cast of POV characters and making sure I show all sides.
I can’t be Atlas. But I can take the steps to make sure my protagonists are individuals, not leeching devices or emblematic models. While they can express more flaws or a more biased point of view, you’re right that I need to make sure I portray these as obstacles for them to overcome. My most recent protagonist starts off in a very radical viewpoint but I’ve got to put some keen attention on making sure those outside of him aren’t acting how he assumes. Maybe the lengthy set of chapters where he reconnects with his old friends once he’s in a better place isn’t something I need to cut after all…
It’s definitely a difficult line to walk. Because I don’t want to exhaust myself or spread myself so thin I feel like I can’t say anything, but I don’t want to be a radical preacher either. Good writing is a story that someone can relate to but also one that has nuance.
While I don’t like every one of my pieces have some grand purpose, you’re making me less insecure about some of the short stories I’ve kept in my back pocket.
Congratulations! We need your writing more than ever now. “….our toxic divides are part of a self-reinforcing cycle—that the hostile, contemptuous behaviors of both political groups contribute to the very extremity on the “other side” that bothers them.”
Thanks, Mollye; it means a lot, for real.
This is why I posted the full text of "On The Abolition of All Political Parties" by Simone Weil