Can’t We All Just Get Along? Understanding Modern Political Polarization: The Role of Empathy and Dialogue
by Marissa Guiang, 2024 Business Fellow
Undoubtedly, modern political matters have become increasingly contentious, leading to a deeply divided, polarized society. Social media, the proliferation of information sources, and the complex nature of contemporary issues contribute to this polarization, making it difficult to find common ground.
Some say that extremism in politics is bad, while others argue that being moderate is the equivalent of being indifferent. I agree that we need people who are passionate about issues. We need those who not only are willing to fight for outcomes they deem to be right but also those who are well-versed in their causes’ context, history, and other nuances. However, it’s far too common that those who are passionate about their activism have both intentionally and subconsciously put blinders on. As a result, we have more echo chambers, narrow-mindedness, and perhaps most dangerous of all—a lack of empathy.
As I’ve gotten older and grown a network of colleagues, classmates, and social acquaintances around the world from different backgrounds, I’ve come to understand that passion for any issue, be it political, social, cultural, or otherwise, must include acknowledgement (or even better, an openness to understanding) the opposite side’s point of view. While this may seem obvious in theory, in current societal practice, the loudest voices often do not agree. On many of today’s most controversial issues, they are unwilling to accept or practice this key tenet of problem solving.
When it comes to formal debates, those who are best prepared in their pitches and rebuttals are those who can defend either side of an argument. Understanding the other side’s point of view makes for a stronger debater. Such a person can clearly anticipate what the opposing side is likely to say. What if we take this approach outside the context of a formal debate and instead apply it to conversations with people who do not agree with us? Not only would this create more educated and less-biased conversations, but this mindset (or even, “preparation”) might also leave more room for empathy. It creates space for humanity in our interactions with others—both in words and in actions.
The sensationalized media coverage of the pro-Palestine encampments across American college campuses paint two seemingly clear pictures, depending on what “side” of the conflict you stand on. One side sees passionate activism and resistance, while the other side sees threatening chaos and violence. In communicating these events, the media coverage shows division.
It is brave to be on the frontlines. It is brave to be a vocal advocate on social media. Taking such a stand leaves people vulnerable to online attacks, cancellation, and potential ramifications from employers. But there is also something brave about engaging in dialogue with the other side. No, not coming into a conversation, guns blazing, ready to lay down proof to show what is “right” or “wrong”—but truly listening and practicing empathy. These people do exist (amongst our in-person circles and indeed on the Internet too), but there is little appreciation for them. It’s not easy to reach across the aisle on issues and listen to (and not just simply hear) someone who disagrees with you.
On some of today’s most controversial issues, people are also expected to “take a side” and to voice it loudly. In my view, voicing an uninformed opinion causes more harm than undecided or uninformed silence. This approach, however, slips into tricky territory. It easily becomes complicity. Words and actions can be violent but so can silence and inaction. It’s a fine line. Considering this quandary, we should be reminded, though, to practice empathy while being open to multiple perspectives. In this way, we can develop as informed an opinion as possible.
In some situations, one side “wins” by whatever means. Just because one side wins doesn’t mean the dialogue ends. While the losing side has all the motivation to continue the dialogue and advocate for their needs and values, I strongly urge the winning side to consider how to include the losing side—how to continue conversations and ensure that dissenters are still part of the dialogue. Not only is this a more inclusive path forward but it also avoids the creation of echo chambers.
When people with different opinions do engage in discussion, they often forget that it’s okay to have unfinished conversations. The purpose of engagement should not be to get others to agree with our point of view. It should be to share perspectives and create moments of mutual teaching and learning, even if opinions go unchanged.
Unfinished conversations can feel deeply uncomfortable—sometimes they may even feel pointless. But what we must remember is that the complex issues that create these stark societal divides can take years, even decades, to “solve.” I use scare quotes here because unfortunately there are some issues where a just solution for one side may result in an unjust outcome (whether perceived or real) for the opposition. A bigger question is whether there can ever be win-win solutions to the world’s biggest issues when popular polarized views dictate binary outcomes with clear winners and losers.
Today’s hot-button topics are fights. There is no compromise. We’ve hardened ourselves, stripped our words and actions of humanity. We cover our ears in the guise of being passionate about causes we care about. I recently read a book about the 2019-2020 Hong Kong democracy protests and how subsets of protestors condoned violence because, put simply, it made progress. One of the quotes that stuck with me was “in fighting monsters, we mustn’t become monsters ourselves.”Taking this stance is obviously easier said than done when you feel like you’ve been wronged and power structures are working against you, but we must consciously work against becoming what we reject, hate, and fight. Power dynamics function in psychologically complicated (and dangerous) ways.
When addressing conflict, empathy is crucial for us both as individuals and as a society. It enables us to move beyond abstract political debates and connect with human experiences; it helps to keep us informed of various challenges and perspectives. Empathy reduces polarization and promotes more effective and humane action. By embracing empathy and having purposeful conversations with those we disagree with, we honor the dignity and suffering of those involved in today’s conflicts. When global morale seems like it’s beyond repair, continue to teach others with genuine intention, but more importantly, learn from others with openness. While not everyone has to (or will) agree, conscious listening at the very least can reduce hate.
Marissa Guiang was a 2024 FASPE Business Fellow. She is an Asia Pacific active investments strategist at BlackRock.