Polarisation and extremism

[HEthePrimate]

Extremism and polarisation seem to be on the rise in today's world. Two obvious example are religion and politics. Though plenty of religious people, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever are normal people just trying to live decent lives. However, there also seem to be more religious extremists and fundamentalists of all faiths than before, or at least they wield more influence than they used to.

Politics are also becoming more extreme and polarised. It's becoming harder for people, not just politicians, but all people, I think, not only to come to agreement about how to solve problems, but even to simply sit down and talk about possible solutions. The rhetoric is becoming more shrill and sometimes people can't even be friends with those they disagree with.

Now, I realize that politics and religion have always been contentious endeavors. I've heard stories about fistfights in sessions of Congress in times past! But that wasn't everyone, and there were still statesmen who would work with each other constructively. There seems to be a general sense today that things are heating up, that it's different now.

My question is this: What can we do, both individually and collectively, to come together and start working better together?

I'm not talking about suppressing opposing voices. Variety is good, and having a number of different viewpoints brought to the table can be helpful--two (or more) heads are better than one! But how do we get people to the table, discussing things with each other, actually listening to each other, and being willing to compromise, when necessary, and actually tackling the problems we all face? This, rather than remaining at different tables and focusing on destroying the tables of opposing teams.

The most common response I've heard so far has been to acknowledge that polarisation is a problem, blame the other party, and say something like "If only the other side would acknowledge that we are right, then all would be well! We can't compromise because we're right, and to move from our position would be wrong." That approach is clearly (to me, anyway) not helpful, and only contributes to the problem. So what can/should we do?

[RipplecutBuddha]

While I cannot recall where I read it, I think an early church leader mentioned that in the last days, the line between right and wrong would become more and more clearly defined. Then again, I could be imagining the whole thing.

At the same time, however, the trend fits in with the approaching last days as the sides of good and evil are drawn together to conclude the battle that was begun in heaven. As time goes on, there is less room for negotiation, let alone fence-sitting.

As such, I can see how this is both a bad thing and a good thing. Bad because peace on earth is even less likely, good because while the dialogue is becoming more shrill, as noted, we can find more people standing up and standing for what they believe on a larger and larger scale. In the past these people would simply sit and watch events unfold against their beliefs. From a financial standpoint this apathy has nearly wrecked the US, as well as many other nations.

Polarization on a social scale is a tricky thing, and it is not uncommon to see it preceed a revolution or two. Even in that, there is good and bad. It all depends on which side one is on I suppose.

[applepansy]

While I cannot recall where I read it, I think an early church leader mentioned that in the last days, the line between right and wrong would become more and more clearly defined. Then again, I could be imagining the whole thing.

At the same time, however, the trend fits in with the approaching last days as the sides of good and evil are drawn together to conclude the battle that was begun in heaven. As time goes on, there is less room for negotiation, let alone fence-sitting.

As such, I can see how this is both a bad thing and a good thing. Bad because peace on earth is even less likely, good because while the dialogue is becoming more shrill, as noted, we can find more people standing up and standing for what they believe on a larger and larger scale. In the past these people would simply sit and watch events unfold against their beliefs. From a financial standpoint this apathy has nearly wrecked the US, as well as many other nations.

Polarization on a social scale is a tricky thing, and it is not uncommon to see it preceed a revolution or two. Even in that, there is good and bad. It all depends on which side one is on I suppose.

This is what I was thinking of too. About 10 years ago when my children were in High School I asked my son and his girlfriend about this invisible line. When I was in high school the line was very clear. There were the kids out in the east parking lot who were smoking, drinking and doing drugs. Then there were the majority of kids going to Seminary (which happened to be on the west side of the high school. (yup, Utah). A very dramatic and obvious line.

When my kids were in high school, there wasn't this obviously separation. Both my son and his girlfriend agreed that there wasn't a division. And we talked about the positive and negatives of this change.

I see it in our world today even more so and the separation seems to get bigger and bigger as we are individually put in a position where we have to ask ourselves "Whose side am I on?". At the same time I see our world screaming for more tolerance. How do you tolerate evil? As our world becomes more wicked, as people become more tolerant of things that are wrong, of course there will be more division because there are those who will say "I am on the Lord's side regardless of the consequences."

Some compromise is good. But we can never compromise gospel principles and morality.

How do we bring more people together? We pray. We fast. We do all we can to live the kind of life we would not be afraid to present to Christ. We teach the gospel and hope others will recognize the Spirit of revelation and accept the Lord's way.

I also think its important to recognize and support good wherever we find it.

[KevlarH]

I think the polarization both religiously and politically, is occurring because there is a wider gap now in what people believe is moral and right. It reminds me of the conflict in the Book of Mormon, where you had what were called King men who were wanting a monarchy government to change the law and have more control over the people, and the Free Men who wanted to protect the freedoms they had enjoyed. The situation today seems very similar to me; We seem to be at the same type of crossroads. There may not be a compromise to be had.

[HEthePrimate]

I'm not sure the difference between good and evil is any more clear than it ever has been. In fact, people, including Latter-day Saints, seem pretty confused about it. And yet, everybody thinks they are the good guys, and everybody else is evil. Which only makes the situation worse, IMHO.

Are Christians good and Muslims bad, or vice versa? I don't think it's that simple at all. Are Republicans good and Democrats bad, or vice versa? I certainly don't think so. Are Mormons good and everybody else in The World bad? Not hardly.

Edited June 9, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[HEthePrimate]

Is it possible that the world is becoming more and more polarised because we are less able to agree on the difference between good and evil? People think the difference between right and wrong is as clear as spring water, and that they have chosen the side of good and righteousness. And yet their opponents think the exact same thing, except that they are the ones who are right. Because everybody thinks they are so obviously right about everything, and frame everything in terms of morality, about which there can be no compromise, all they can do is fight against the opposing team(s), and the world's problems never get solved.

[HEthePrimate]

To be clear, I agree that some things we should not compromise on. But I get the impression that people are extending that to virtually everything, like it's weak or morally wrong to compromise about anything at all. If the Founders had been unwilling to compromise, the Constitution would never have been ratified. Writing and ratifying the Constitution was an arduous process, but they did have statesmen among them, and the job got done. The end result was not perfect, and virtually nobody was completely pleased with it, but it got passed, and a new, more or less workable, government was born.

The difference between then and now is that today we could not ratify the Constitution for lack of statesmen and willingness to make reasonable compromises.

[JesusParadox]

Compromise is a lost art in America. It starts with individuals within our society who can not ever admit they are wrong. That then, sadly, carries with them into politics.

If people could just break the chains of pride; this world would be a better place.

People in America need to wake up and realize they are not always right. If Americans had the ability to recognize they don't always have to be right compromise could easily take place.

[Hala401]

From an anthropological point of view, it is known that rats in a cage begin to feud when the population density goes above a certain point. Are we seeing that in humans? Resources are declining and there are not the opportunities for the young that I had.

I think that certain radio commentators have fanned the fires of disagreement and if they are not moderated, we will lose our first amendment to the Constitution. Much to my surprise, neither Canada nor the UK have such privileges, and offenders can be brought to heel over malicious speech. I am sorry to say that I support that, but fear any tampering with our Constitution.

As a Muslim, when I lived near Kirtland, Ohio, there were certain right wing organisations who were brought in to speak and they would say that Muslims are devils and all sorts of things. The same thing has happened here in Portland, but they were pretty much just blown off. Portland is just not a very religious place.

The Muslim population for the most part is pretty much indigenous with the rest of the population, and eventually reason won out. All this prejudice because about two dozen nut cases did the 9/11 attack. Certain parties deliberately tried to create hysteria over something that was not the belief of many Muslims at all.

The same thing happened with Japanese imigrants at WWII, and with blacks after the Civil War.

There just seems to be a certain element in humans that thrives on lurid stories and strife. As Mormons, we should know about that because of what happened to us in the formational years of our own faith.

[HEthePrimate]

Thank you, MasterOrator. I'll admit that I fall into this trap like everybody else. I think it's right, and it can be HARD to sit down and listen to someone, and seriously consider what they're saying. Listening like that doesn't mean I have to ultimately agree with them, but it does help to understand where they're coming from. Sometimes (though not always) when we truly listen, we find out that we actually agree on a lot, that the differences between us are not so insurmountable, after all.

[Hala401]

Thank you, MasterOrator. I'll admit that I fall into this trap like everybody else. I think it's right, and it can be HARD to sit down and listen to someone, and seriously consider what they're saying. Listening like that doesn't mean I have to ultimately agree with them, but it does help to understand where they're coming from. Sometimes (though not always) when we truly listen, we find out that we actually agree on a lot, that the differences between us are not so insurmountable, after all.

I was not so long ago giving a new church member a ride to church, and she mentioned to me that she knew a single woman in Nevada that worked at a "girls ranch", had four children, and was a member. Having had people be unjustly judgmental with me, I was wont to judge this woman. I just know that for single women with a bunch of children, life can be hard.

I still don't know what to think and I am thankful that the priesthood exists, and I do not deal with those problems. I've been put in a number of really bad places in life and found a few people who were more than willing to judge but not to help.

I wish humans were not so quarrelsome, and suspect that one day this thing in our nature will be recognised and hope that those people will be medicated, or genetically cured, or something.

[applepansy]

Compromise is a lost art in America. It starts with individuals within our society who can not ever admit they are wrong. That then, sadly, carries with them into politics.

If people could just break the chains of pride; this world would be a better place.

People in America need to wake up and realize they are not always right. If Americans had the ability to recognize they don't always have to be right compromise could easily take place.

There is intolerance everywhere not just in America, not just one race or religion. Singling out one group just perpetuates what is being discussed here.

We should only compromise when to do so doesn't put us at odds with God's laws.

[HEthePrimate]

There is intolerance everywhere not just in America, not just one race or religion. Singling out one group just perpetuates what is being discussed here.

We should only compromise when to do so doesn't put us at odds with God's laws.

Indeed, it is going on all over the world. It's easier to see what's going on at home than elsewhere, which is probably why MO focused on the U.S. But yeah, it's good to keep in mind that it's not just a "local" problem.

Peace.

[NeuroTypical]

It's becoming harder for people, not just politicians, but all people, I think, not only to come to agreement about how to solve problems, but even to simply sit down and talk about possible solutions.

Agreed. Michael Medved has been observing for some time now, that the foundational divide between left and right today, is wider and deeper than what divided North and South right before the civil war.

My question is this: What can we do, both individually and collectively, to come together and start working better together?

We see similar divides throughout history. The "solutions" tend to not be that appealing. You identified silencing one party - that's one way history has handled such things. Other ways include:

- Civil war (settled the slavery question by bloodily defeating the people in favor of it)

- Refusing to deal with issues until something breaks (watching this happen in Europe right now)

- Becoming weak and getting taken over by rival powers (Every empire the world has ever produced has done this, except our current one)

- Coups, revolution, rioting, civil unrest, etc (Arab spring is the latest iteration)

- Dirty tricks (vote fraud, lying, bad politics, threats of violence, the list is endless)

I guess there's an alternative - work together with each other in the spirit of charity and brotherhood, endure difficulties that our divisiveness has brought upon us, be smart enough to stop doing dumb things - stuff like that. I'm not incredibly hopeful. I think just defeating the other guy at the ballot box is a more plausible and possible solution.

[Hala401]

Indeed, it is going on all over the world. It's easier to see what's going on at home than elsewhere, which is probably why MO focused on the U.S. But yeah, it's good to keep in mind that it's not just a "local" problem.

Peace.

Yes, in comparison to the rest of the world, intolerance is quite mild. I can think of some Iraqi women who were either beaten or killed because they wore a bit of makeup. In Afghanistan, women are sometimes killed for even leaving the home.

Those who read, will find that loathesome violence is the rule of the day in some other places. We are so fortunate that all we have to bear here in America are quite hurtful words for the most part. I can remember a certain evangelist saying "All Muslims are going to HELL". Recently a young woman was, on national radio, called a whore when all she wanted was some help with birth control.

Before someone jumps on me about that last issue, I fully support the church, The Word of Wisdome, and abstenance. Still, if someone's choice is to be sexually active and she does not want the offspring, then by all means let her have birth control. I was frequently told that I was an unwanted baby when I was young, and to this day I wish I had not been born.

So, Heavenly Father had his will in my case, so please let my days be pleasing to him

[Vort]

Recently a young woman was, on national radio, called a whore when all she wanted was some help with birth control.

To be fair, it is not that she merely wanted "some help" with birth control. She thought the government should be obliged to pay for birth control. The issue was not birth control per se, but government involvement in paying for it. I don't agree with calling her a "whore", but she was not called a "whore" merely because she wanted birth control.

[Hala401]

Yes, you are right and I am so thankful that I am not a member of the priesthood. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

To be clear, I agree that some things we should not compromise on. But I get the impression that people are extending that to virtually everything, like it's weak or morally wrong to compromise about anything at all. If the Founders had been unwilling to compromise, the Constitution would never have been ratified. Writing and ratifying the Constitution was an arduous process, but they did have statesmen among them, and the job got done. The end result was not perfect, and virtually nobody was completely pleased with it, but it got passed, and a new, more or less workable, government was born.

The difference between then and now is that today we could not ratify the Constitution for lack of statesmen and willingness to make reasonable compromises.

I would venture to guess that if the Southern delegates of 1787 could have foreseen that their new creation would ultimately unleash over a million troops against their home states, they would never have signed on to the "compromse" in the first place. Even some of the more powerful northern states, like Massachusetts, may have seen the new Constitution differently if they'd comprehended that less than a century later their own state--which held their primary allegiance--would become such a minority player in the new Republic.

In other words: It's possible that in many instances, "compromise" comes from the participants' blindness to the long-term implications of their actions. It may be that today's politicians aren't inferior statesman at all; they're just more open to the potential long-term repercussions of the decisions they make and therefore much more cautious about acting against their own ideals.

I'm currently reading McCullogh's biography of John Adams, and the take-away I get from it is that political debate within two decades of the Ratification was at least as rancorous as anything we see today.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[applepansy]

I would venture to guess that if the Southern delegates of 1787 could have foreseen that their new creation would ultimately unleash over a million troops against their home states, they would never have signed on to the "compromse" in the first place. Even some of the more powerful northern states, like Massachusetts, may have seen the new Constitution differently if they'd comprehended that less than a century later their own state--which held their primary allegiance--would become such a minority player in the new Republic.

In other words: It's possible that in many instances, "compromise" comes from the participants' blindness to the long-term implications of their actions. It may be that today's politicians aren't inferior statesman at all; they're just more open to the potential long-term repercussions of the decisions they make and therefore much more cautious about acting against their own ideals.

I'm currently reading McCullogh's biography of John Adams, and the take-away I get from it is that political debate within two decades of the Ratification was at least as rancorous as anything we see today.

I agree.

Great Book. Currently reading 1776.

[annewandering]

How can we agree on anything nationally when we cant even agree on things in the church. How can we come to compromises when we call each others sheeples and evil? How can we come to any agreement when even in the church, if you belong to the 'wrong' party you are told that you arent really a good mormon.

Pride, self righteousness, hunger for power will rule us till we get to the point that we understand the true meaning of loving our fellow man. I see no hope at all till Jesus comes to show us, in person, the right way. Even then we are likely to argue about it for a bit longer.

[applepansy]

How can we agree on anything nationally when we cant even agree on things in the church. How can we come to compromises when we call each others sheeples and evil? How can we come to any agreement when even in the church, if you belong to the 'wrong' party you are told that you arent really a good mormon.

Pride, self righteousness, hunger for power will rule us till we get to the point that we understand the true meaning of loving our fellow man. I see no hope at all till Jesus comes to show us, in person, the right way. Even then we are likely to argue about it for a bit longer.

Anne I agree that pride and uncharitable behavior has gotten us where we are as a nation and as a world.

I would hope that we aren't still arguing after Christ comes.

[JesusParadox]

There is intolerance everywhere not just in America, not just one race or religion. Singling out one group just perpetuates what is being discussed here.

We should only compromise when to do so doesn't put us at odds with God's laws.

I am an American so I prefer to talk about America(United States).

[JesusParadox]

To be fair, it is not that she merely wanted "some help" with birth control. She thought the government should be obliged to pay for birth control. The issue was not birth control per se, but government involvement in paying for it. I don't agree with calling her a "whore", but she was not called a "whore" merely because she wanted birth control.

She was called a whore for wanting the government to pay for Birth Control? That does not make sense... It seems like the more plausible explanation would be that she was called a whore for wanting birth control.

[Vort]

She was called a whore for wanting the government to pay for Birth Control? That does not make sense... It seems like the more plausible explanation would be that she was called a whore for wanting birth control.

Whether or not it makes sense to you is irrelevant. The fact is that she was called a "whore" because she wanted the government to pay for birth control. In the mind of the person who called her a "whore", this was tantamount to being paid for sexual activity.

[LittleWyvern]

My question is this: What can we do, both individually and collectively, to come together and start working better together?

I'm not talking about suppressing opposing voices. Variety is good, and having a number of different viewpoints brought to the table can be helpful--two (or more) heads are better than one! But how do we get people to the table, discussing things with each other, actually listening to each other, and being willing to compromise, when necessary, and actually tackling the problems we all face? This, rather than remaining at different tables and focusing on destroying the tables of opposing teams.

The most common response I've heard so far has been to acknowledge that polarisation is a problem, blame the other party, and say something like "If only the other side would acknowledge that we are right, then all would be well! We can't compromise because we're right, and to move from our position would be wrong." That approach is clearly (to me, anyway) not helpful, and only contributes to the problem. So what can/should we do?

From my experience, the best way to eliminate prejudice, close-mindedness, and stubbornness is friendship. In nearly all cases, we demonize and stereotype people we know nothing about.