Do you talk about politics with your friends?
I certainly do. But as a self-described political science nerd, I’m pretty sure I am not in the majority.
Still, even if you don’t spend your time thinking about election cycles and budget deficits, there are an increasing number of cultural issues that have become both more prominent and politicized in recent years.
Whether it be abortion, gun control, LGBTQ+ rights or anti-racism, it can be difficult to avoid thinking and talking about the culture war.
With these issues becoming so divisive, is it possible to hang on to a friendship with someone you fundamentally disagree with?
For many of us in college who have the luxury of choosing our social circles and staying in our bubbles, it might not be a pressing issue right now.
Still, whether you are interacting with family, old friends from home, future coworkers, social media networks or any other interpersonal medium, it’s inevitable that you will someday have to coexist with someone who you believe has a “fundamentally flawed” worldview.
Recent years have seen a dramatic uptick in Americans’ negative feelings toward the opposing political party, with both parties becoming more hesitant to befriend those on the other side.
Even if you aren’t a strong partisan who believes the Democratic party is overrun with socialists or the Republican party is filled with fascists, it can be hard to reconcile differences with friends and colleagues with vastly different views on cultural issues.
Much of the intransigence felt by both sides of these debates is rooted in the fact that many of these issues are viewed as moral absolutes.
It can be challenging to continue a relationship or to even hold a conversation with someone who you see as morally compromised.
Members of the LGBTQ+ community and allies may not be able to brush aside a trans-exclusionary or homophobic attitude from a friend in the same way that pro-life and pro-choice people may not be able to get past the other side’s beliefs.
When these differences seem irreconcilable, we retreat from them and choose to surround ourselves with people who confirm our moral stance and approach the opposing side with a one-dimensional hatred.
While it is an understandable reaction when faced with the frustration of disagreement, surrounding ourselves with those who agree with us and demonizing those with whom we disagree accomplishes little and actively heightens tensions.
Many Americans have compartmentalized every position they disagree with into neat boxes in their mind that they wish to rot, creating false certainty in subjectivity and stagnating their intellectual and emotional growth.
One of the main causes of this stagnation and the hasty moral conclusions that partisans writ large engage in is the conflation of our personal identities with our political or cultural beliefs.
This means that we tend to treat our positions on contentious issues or our beliefs in ideologies and political parties as strong components of our identities, provoking defensive reactions when we hear arguments that do not comply with our worldview.
This way of establishing identity can render inter-ideology friendships almost impossible.
There is immense value in being able to tolerate views that you personally abhor and attempting to understand the experiences and identities of those who hold those beliefs. But in order to do that, we have to attempt to unravel the intertwining strings of identity and belief.
I am under no delusion that open conversations will heal all cultural wounds and lead us to a society without conflict; studies show that not to be the case.
Moreover, it would be hypocritical of me to hold this tolerance as a standard to everyone else when I myself am home to numerous political and cultural biases. These are biases that I hold to be valid at the moment, but they are biases nonetheless.
Still, it shows great emotional intelligence to be able to understand that your beliefs are based on your experiences and are likely to change over time.
I am not yet at that level of self-understanding, but I am striving to better myself and hope others choose to similarly examine their own beliefs. If we can get that far, then maybe we’ll all become just a little bit friendlier.
1 Comment
Thank you Brendan for describing the elephant in the room.
As a Christian who believes in a God who respects and loves me as a highly imperfect human I am asked to do the same for others. This creates a standard to aspire to, even if I often fall short.
With the general rejection of organized religion and the spread of the pseudo religion of “ME”, associated standards tend to become the beliefs of the groups that people identify with. People are working with different viewpoints. Respect is typically given to those in particular identity groups, not necessarily to all. As you wrote: “This way of establishing identity can render inter-ideology friendships almost impossible.”
“… it shows great emotional intelligence to be able to understand that your beliefs are based on your experiences … .” Experience is not the only method of learning. Learning can be accomplished by gathering information and processing it in a rational manner.
Christians SHOULD be open to discussion and understanding (“When you finally learn that a person’s behavior has more to do with their internal struggles than it ever did with you, you learn grace.”). A professed Christian who does not practice Christianity will probably find it difficult to join in a discussion
I’ll leave it to others to comment on the abilities of others to enhance a discussion.
Comment Policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to refuse the publication of entirely anonymous comments.