Beware the Bridgers’ Bubble

A guest post by Nathan Smolensky

Our articles are completely free to read. If you enjoy our work and wish to support our book, there’s an option to upgrade to paid, but only if you want to. We are grateful to all subscribers! We encourage readers to share about our book Beyond the Politics of Contempt: Practical Steps to Build Positive Relationships in Divided Times on social media, or write a review on Amazon or elsewhere. And if you haven’t read our book yet, consider asking your local library to request a copy of our audiobook for you!

---

This week, we feature a guest post by Nathan Smolensky, author of “Common Ground from the Ground Up.” He writes:

“At a recent event, I took part in a wonderfully civil and productive conversation on immigration. We discussed deportations and concerns around family separation, and we discussed the implications of border policy and security, and the logistical burden of managing large waves of immigrants. All of the disagreement was respectful, everyone took their turn to speak, and everyone felt heard.

There was just one problem.

All those who took part in the conversation, and in the event around it, were there because they opted in. They were looking for a civil discussion around immigration and other topics. They were already inclined to be respectful to one another. The conversation we were having was missing the people who needed it most.

---

A Growing Bubble, But a Bubble Nonetheless

Like so many others, I became interested in the topic of depolarization, and in the world of civic bridging and dialogue-building, following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. I’ve been fortunate enough to see the movement’s incredible growth since then, from Braver Angels to BridgeUSA to the Constructive Dialogue Institute to so many other organizations and individuals working to bring people together. I’ve seen a boom in workshops and curricula and books dedicated to these efforts, and I’ve seen the research that underpins these materials expanded and refined.

But these resources are utilized by those who seek them out, by those who want to engage in dialogue-building and civility and healthy discourse. This creates the opt-in phenomenon, and it limits the movement’s reach.

If we rely on a vision of dialogue, civility, and the like to attract others to our movement, then our audience will be composed largely of those who are already convinced of the value of these things. We risk falling into the trap of most every ideological movement in the modern age, preaching to our choir while our message fails to reach the people who need it most.

---

A Clash of Imperatives

A great many organizations and efforts within our space were started upon a vision of civility, healthy dialogue, and respectful disagreement as noble virtues worth pursuing in and of themselves. And, to be clear, they are noble virtues worth pursuing in and of themselves. But if we rely on this moral imperative to attract others to join our efforts, then we end up selling ourselves short, and drastically limiting our potential for positive impact.

The key problem with bridging or depolarization as a moral imperative is that we have to compete against every other moral imperative. People may very well care about civility, about healthy dialogue, about the freedom of others to speak, but what if they care more about the plight of immigrants? Or about abortion? Or about the Middle East? What if they see so much at stake in whatever real-world issues that they feel speaking civilly about it, or tolerating others’ perspectives, simply isn’t worth it?

If we are dealing with this sort of hesitation, whether it is from a large audience or organization that we’re trying to appeal to, or with a friend or family member or neighbor whom we’re trying to attract to the bridging space, we cannot rely simply on arguing that our moral virtue is greater. At best, this line of thinking is simply not going to resonate with the most polarized among us, and that’s going to seriously hinder our efforts to depolarize. At worst, insisting too greatly upon our virtues being the highest priority and the most important, can create a sense of moral superiority, a mentality that is unhealthy for those within the movement and deeply off-putting to those outside of it.

There’s a way around all of that, and it begins with realizing that the mission of bridging does not need to rely on any moral imperative. The skills that we foster, of civil discourse, of constructive dialogue, of common-ground seeking, offer a pathway to a great many goals, some of which our desired audiences are already pursuing.

---

Meeting People Where They Are

Some time ago, I wrote an article about what I termed the Great Political Finger Trap, about the phenomenon that our division feeds itself, that engaging in polarization will never resolve the conflict. We may be absolutely justified in pushing back and pulling away from those who disagree with us, but we often only harden their feelings when we do so. Just as it is with the classic Chinese finger trap, it is by coming together that we can actually break free.

By utilizing such a framework, we can meet people where they are — we can show them how the bridging tools we share can help them get where they’re trying to go, and not rely on convincing them that some other destination is more worthwhile. When we encounter those who say that their cause is simply too important to be civil or to engage in constructive dialogue, we can point to the fallacy in their logic: what exactly is being louder and less civil going to accomplish, except to push others away and to make our side look worse? How are we going to move the needle, if we can only endure talking to those who share our viewpoints? And if we really want people to open their minds and listen to what we have to say, would it not behoove us to open our own minds and listen to what they have to say?

At the heart of all of this is the incredible power of bridging as a means to more effective advocacy, communication, and relationship-building. Bridging empowers us. Being able to listen to different perspectives helps us to understand them, to understand how we sound to others as well as how they sound to us, and even to try to persuade, if we should so choose. Being able to approach conversation with a curious, collaborative, and positive mindset opens up a world of possibility.

Consider the college students, trying to prepare for the real world, passionate about their causes but struggling to engage critically and constructively with others. Consider the workspaces, where there is so much profit to be found by fostering clear and healthy communication, and integrating different styles and perspectives. Consider even the legislators, looking to reach across their aisles and garner support for their initiatives. All of these groups, and so many more, can gain from the power of bridging.

The reality is that most of us are stuck in one bubble or another. We’re stuck in these bubbles because of the way we communicate and silo ourselves in the digital age, because of the ways we divide ourselves and the ways we’re divided by others.

Within the bridging space, we hold the key to helping others break out of their bubbles. And if we understand that, we’ll have the key to breaking out of our own.”