Why Can't We Be Friends

     I wrote a post about Why Black Lives Matter, particularly the "why" behind the name and the validity of the idea itself. Since the idea took social media and then mainstream media by storm, there have been other movements-not exactly counter movements, but they are certainly not congruent. All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter became an alternative for those who did not believe in the Black Lives Matter movement. Does this mean that people who support All Lives and Blue Lives do not believe that Black lives matter? Perhaps that is true for many (if you don't believe me, visit the Black Lives Matter Facebook page), but certainly not for all. So how can people who do in fact believe that Black lives matter not be willing to support the movement or even utter the phrase? Why is something as fundamental as the acknowledgment of human worth controversial?

    Another example is violence, particularly gun violence in the United States. The statistics of gun violence are a matter of fact. Whether we look at mass shootings, domestic violence, street violence, or violence against police officers, the numbers and statistics paint a grim and bloody image. If you want a reference, take a look at the Gun Violence Archive. But somehow, the problem has been repackaged as a battle over the constitution and for the soul of our country as a democracy, and the issue of gun violence can only be seen as a problem if it is viewed from the left. Does this mean that conservative Americans don't care about the victims of gun violence? Again, maybe some don't, but many conservatives understand that violence of any kind should be a human issue, not just a party agenda item. 

     Both of these issues became more than debates on semantics or legislation. It is understandable that the implementation and solution for these issues are complicated and debatable; but the ideas themselves, which are fairly simple and should be non-threatening, became defensible positions with people on both sides unable to even agree on the most basic points of the issue, namely that an issue even existed.

     Was there ever a time when people could disagree with one another and still be civil, even friendly? Of course, I'm thinking mostly about political or social issues. According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, we’re seeing a level of polarization that we haven’t seen since Reconstruction ended. But even with regular every day differences, were people able to navigate the space between opposing viewpoints and common ground? I am fascinated with this question, especially considering the current social climate in which we live where disagreements breed hatred and conflict, and where people are quick to ardently defend their point of view without consideration of any facts or opinions that are counter to the points they are defending. People will base their very identities on an issue they are for or against in such a way that they and the people who agree with them are fundamentally better than those who hold opposing viewpoints.  Maybe it hasn't gotten worse in recent years. Maybe people were always this way. 

     It is important to embrace debate and opposition. Humans rely on alternative points of view to identify and to solve issues, so conflict, discourse, compromise, and resolution are essential to humanity’s social evolution. But the methods that we use to debate opposing viewpoints are extremely important too. If we become more concerned with being right and bullying others into agreeing with our superior points of view, then we lose the opportunity for societal growth. We may be able to win small tribal battles, but it comes at the expense of a chance to collectively change. We become more entrenched with members of our own camp; and in a world that is becoming smaller through globalism and cultural exchange, we cannot afford to revert to tribalism.

     Dr. Mark Alicke wrote this for Psychology Today:  “The secret, I think, is not to pretend that I don’t believe what I believe, or to acknowledge that others might be right, but to recognize that when the sum total of rightness and wrongness is added up, I am unlikely to come out on top, and would be lucky to get a tie. So while my identity remains protected, I am hopefully not so obtuse as to believe that I am a better person than those I disagree with.” If we can understand this idea, if we realize that we are not better than the people who disagree with us, if we can acknowledge that we have been wrong before and we will be wrong again, we can start moving forward and make meaningful change for the benefit of everyone. Only then will we have a chance right the wrongs of the past and truly make America great. Can we at least agree on that?