Our instructor Will Braun, whom I mentioned in my most recent post, is  the editor of the Canadian Mennonite. The class I also mentioned  was an  on-line virtual class facilitated by Canadian Mennonite University.  The invitation from them  had said it would “an upside down look at polarization.”  That title intrigued me. What did it mean? What could I expect? Is there a better more fruitful way of looking at this issue?

 

A lot of people have been talking about polarization for a couple of years now, and virtually everyone says they hate it, but no one seems to be able to do anything about it. Some of us hate it but actually contribute to refinforcing it. Could we do something about that  with Will Braun’s help?  I was hoping so. I knew I could use some help.

 

First, he said, he wanted us to take a deep breath, because the issue of polarization requires us to look at our own inner lives. That requires our attention, so the first thing we need to do is slow down.

 

Braun started with a thought experiment, as he called it. He asked us to

 

“think about a person with whom we disagree with quite sharply. That person calls us up and acknowledges we have butted heads over the years and I know there is some underlying tension between us. I want to understand you better and how you got to where you are and to how you think. Can we get together to talk about this?”

 

 

This assumes of course that we would be willing to participate in such a discussion. What would motivate a person to do that? What would I think about that? How would I feel about this?

 

We will come back to this later.

 

The word “polarization” denotes two poles. As a result, we need some way to define those poles whether we like to do that or not.  For example, the poles could be left-wing or right-wing. Or conservative or liberal (or progressive). All such categories are insufficient. He said he assume most of us are left or progressive, but says he has become disenchanted with the left though that has been his team. “The camp I was once in does not feel as comfortable any more as it once did.” I would like to suggest that this is part of a common shift to the right. Not a complete shift but a widespread partial shift in that direction. Perhaps the left has gone off the rails and it has become a little too overheated or too extreme or too polarized.  Or perhaps the right is just fatigued with the issues the left keeps bringing up.

 

I think many feel this way. The most famous person I think who has said something like this was  Bill Maher. He seems to me to like the left less and less. In fact he has admitted that. He claims they have changed not him. I too come from this perspective too but perhaps am still more or less on that side.

 

What we have to do to have discussions about issues like this is that we must banish bashing. And sneering too. No mocking.  Will used an expression that he likes more than I like and that is this: “we must remember that we are all beloved of God.” I agree with the tone of this comment if not all of the specific contents of it. To discuss such issues, I would suggest we must hold our polarized views in check. If we are sliding towards hate, we have certainly gone too far. None of us are worthless. I think that sums up Braun’s view which aligns closely with my own.

 

Will is like me in that he lives in a very derisive community where most of the people I talk to are much more conservative than I am. Yet I know that most of them are good people, even though they are different from me. I don’t want to sneer at them or mock them. I want to understand them better and either move closer to their views or nudge them in my direction. As Braun said, “I don’t want to throw such people under the bus.” I don’t want to dismiss them. I won’t put them all into “a basket of deplorables” like Hillary Clinton did so disastrously. Nothing good would come of that, I am certain.

 

Some people who engage in discussion about polarization quickly assume that this will be a good opportunity to bash the other side. The bad guys, of course are wrong, for they disagree with me and I am right. I think that is a fairly normal attitude.

 

In such discussions there is often some tension. The blood pressure might go up. We will have to accept that. This is an issue about what people feel strongly about.

 

Then Braun used an expression I have trouble with. I have trouble with it because to me it does not seem that clear. He says, he wanted us always, “to tend to the heart.” He calls this a grounding point.  Braun said, “when I engage in such questions my goal is not to change minds, but to change my heart.”  Again, I have a little trouble getting this? It sounds attractive but what does it actually mean? Yet I think there is something to this notion.  I feel like if I am concentrating on that task I have a better chance of finding common ground with the other. Perhaps that might ease the tension. Frankly, I have recently experienced exactly the tension Braun mentions with good friends and I would like to ease that tension. Is it possible? Can I do it?