A recent study by the Pew Center finds our nation has become remarkably more polarized. The research says media seem to stimulate and reflect the nation's polarization on either end of the spectrum: the 20 percent most liberal and 20 percent most conservative Americans show no overlap in their media consumption. In terms of news and information, they might as well be living on two different planets. The same news event can be presented to each audience with very different framing and often very different fact sets.
Growing numbers of Americans live in "factual silos," like alternative universes, choosing to expose themselves only to information cordial to their own opinions. Many people believe things that are factually false because it is true in their silo. Too many Americans are using the media the same way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support, not illumination.
But Dr. Carolyn Lukensmyer, founder of the nonpartisan initiative AmericaSpeaks, sees a public not necessarily as divided as our Congress appears to be. In 1838, French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville observed when there was an issue to solve, the American population would quickly leave ideology to work to solve the problem. Lukensmyer says that is still true today.
When a diverse group of Americans comes together around an issue, and when they can share a set of facts representing the whole spectrum of the issue, nearly two-thirds of the group will move together quickly to solve the problem. She notes a significant exception. In such a setting, 15-16 percent of conservatives and 12-13 percent of liberals will remain in their ideological positions, resisting engagement with the information with possible answers outside of their silos. But the vast majority of Americans have a natural propensity for pragmatism.
One of the key factors for creating healthy debate rather than toxic in-fighting is the creation of a safe space for discussion.
In 2003, I was charged with creating a safe space for our congregation's discussion of a highly charged emotional and theological issue, the blessing of same-sex relationships. The camps were divided. From the beginning we made it clear that good, faithful Christians may come to very different conclusions about such blessings. It was our intention to explore something potentially divisive, yet remain within our Baptismal promise to "seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself," and to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." (Book of Common Prayer)
We were helped by a small booklet by Bishop Steven Charleston, "Good News: A Congregational Resource for Reconciliation." Bishop Charleston says that "reconciliation is not resolution." We were to follow a way of reconciliation based on the way of Jesus, a path to discover new ways to live together. "At the end of that path, people may still disagree, but they will have found the peace of Christ which is at the heart of community."
The Good News process created a fair and respectful container for dialogue among persons of very different opinions. It was grounded in the gospel values of justice, compassion and reconciliation. I recruited the first group to the process as people strongly divided -- 4 "for" and 4 "against" -- the two silos meeting one another.
There were rules: Each person was given an equal amount of time to speak, without interruption or comment. The conversation was to remain respectful, without criticism or rancor. We agreed to honor the feelings of others as genuine and sincere. We agreed to disagree without threats or accusations. We agreed that "we are all seeking the mind of Christ." We promised to hold all we shared in confidence.
The first group finished the process of its four meetings with this report: "Nobody changed their minds. But when we were finished, we knew each other, everyone in that room loved everyone else in a new way." Their experience became the foundation of our congregation's further engagement, a process that left us stronger rather than fractured.
I yearn for a society that can commit to transcendent values like justice, compassion and reconciliation as a container for respectful conversation aimed at solving problems. I want leaders who can get out of their silos to find the best research-based information available and bring wisdom to the table. I want a world where we recognize each human being as created in the image of God, and where we commit to love our neighbor as ourselves. We don't have to live in silos. We can talk. Respectfully.
LOWELL GRISHAM IS AN EPISCOPAL PRIEST WHO LIVES IN FAYETTEVILLE.
Commentary on 11/09/2014