Building Unity Across Differences
What we want to achieve with this program is to make you more skilled in recognizing, on the one hand, the difference between a conflict versus polarization (thanks to Bart Brandsma, Philosopher and author of publication: Polarisatie 2016). And on the other hand, how you can to Act. In one term ReAc, which stands for Recognize & Act. If you do not know it, it is not easy to see it.
The sketch above visualizes our field of work. In this workshop we focus on the left side. Where you work together to connect better and tackle together, trust also grows. Also attention for: Belonging, Professional growth and appreciation.
The workshop starts immediately with an exercise in which I gratefully use Dr. Froukje Wirtz (Dynamic judgment and diagnosis in organizations, 1998). We also often use this model at the start of an assignment, to investigate together with the person involved what is really going on. This part falls within RECOGNIZING a (difficult) situation and the word ‘observe’ may be too simplistic, as there is not enough interaction in it, perhaps diagnosis is a more complete term.
We also like to refer to Marshall B. Rosenberg with his (Nonviolent Communication 2010), the giraffe and jackal. He shares an entire program of 9 lessons on YouTube, which makes you aware of the steps: Observe, Feel, What do you need, and make a request. These positions are also included in the dynamic judgment model.
The 4 levels of denial (Mellor and Sigmond), is a powerful element that stops us from RECOGNIZING something. And this applies not only to people as individuals, but also to groups, organizations or even an entire people or nation(s).
- I have no cough at all
- Yes, I have a cough but it’s nothing I know,
- it’s serious, but I can’t do anything about it
- Nobody can do anything about it
What can you do to increase polarization? Making fun of someone or a group, Paul Verhaeghe (Identiteit 2013), mixing facts and opinions, lying, and … not taking someone’s feelings seriously.
After this workshop, we recommend also listening to the podcast Scientist in Polarization (Edwin van Laar and Bart Brandsma) Wageningen University & Research. This link is in Dutch
By the way, polarization can be very healthy, even in times of peace you can have conflicts and polarization. Even in the best marriages. The essence is, do we treat each other humanely, or do we go ahead and start shooting? Or do we come around the table and better map out the problem?
Polarization is not always hatred towards the other group, it can also be very internally focused, love, passion, loyalty to one’s own group. Conformism. Groups within a group can also strengthen identity.
In both the Netherlands and Belgium, a lot of attention is paid by both the business community and government to tackling polarization. I would also like to refer to the Dutch report: Theories and approaches to polarization (Ron van Wonderen, Joline Verloove and Hanneke Felten).
Mapping the roles and positions is essential to subsequently determine your strategy. The description below comes from the report: Theories and approaches to polarization, but originally by Bart Brandsma.
The Pushers, the personification of a point of view, monologue. The first role is that of the ‘pusher’ who ‘pushes’ the polarization at one of the two poles. The pusher continually fuels polarization by making the opposite pole suspicious and recruiting as many supporters as possible from the middle. Pushers have no doubts, are visible to the entire playing field, speak about the urgency of making a choice, and use emotions in their strategy. The pusher makes (simple) statements about ‘the other’, the opposite: Muslims are terrorists, refugees are testosterone bombs. But the pusher on the opposite pole does exactly the same thing. According to the pusher, evil is always on the other side. Pushers play a visible leading role. They have their own (moral) right, the other is 100% wrong. The identities that are placed opposite each other have nothing in common: a pusher forces you to choose. He will not allow himself to listen to the other, because then he loses his role. Moderation and nuance lose face. That makes his position unpredictable, and therefore powerful and vulnerable at the same time.
The Followers, the ‘joiner’, who makes a choice for one of the two poles. The joiner chooses one of the two poles. He is not as extreme as the pusher and partly supports his view, at least in the beginning. But he does indeed join a camp of supporters: he gains color and status. As polarization increases, it is difficult for the joiner to switch to the other camp, as that would mean betrayal. Joiners come in all shapes and sizes. (For example, the ‘aspiring pusher’ lives close to the poles. He is busy substantiating his own right with facts and reasons. To do this, he selects information that supports his own right. An aspiring pusher mainly wants to deliver a monologue, he shows no interest in the other person’s point of view.
The somewhat more moderate joiner enters into the discussion. Your own right comes first, but a conversation can take place, even if it is next to each other. The joiner who wants to start a debate is a little further towards the middle. In a good debate people are listened to and the position can be adjusted somewhat. Only in the middle can there be a dialogue: one’s own views are not central, exchange is possible about a shared question or dilemma.
The ‘silent middle’ is the largest group of citizens. They take a neutral position in a debate. There are several groups ‘in the silent middle’. Some citizens think about an issue in a nuanced way and weigh up their pros and cons. Others do not, they are indifferent to the issue, in fact they do not take a clear position. As polarization increases, people in the silent middle are increasingly forced to make a choice and the middle disappears.
Interventions to combat polarization should focus on strengthening the resilience of ‘the middle’ against pressure from the poles, and should therefore not be aimed at ‘poles’ or ‘instigators’. That would not only be a futile effort, but would actually provide ‘fuel’ to a polarization process. In Brandsma’s words: ‘Don’t fight the poles, but strengthen and confirm the midfield. So that the silent majority does not switch to the joiners.’ The pushers and joiners in the debate also find their target group in the middle, where they want to recruit supporters.
The bridge builder wants to solve the polarization. He sees deficiencies in the worldview of both one pole and the other. Through dialogue or counter-stories, he wants to bring nuance to the vision of pushers and joiners. But speaking about the other just as easily fuels polarization. After all, people and groups located near the poles – the extremes – do not listen to each other. In this way, the bridge builder with the best intentions provides fuel to polarization.
The media can play this role of bridge builder – and therefore accelerator – if they show and contrast both sides.
The fifth role is that of the scapegoat, right in the middle between the poles. The middle has become a precarious position, after all, you are expected to be for or against, an intermediate position is not accepted. If you’re not with us, you’re against us! The bridge builder is an ideal scapegoat. This was tolerated as long as it served the interests of both camps. But under extreme polarization pressure, someone who provides nuance is perceived as a traitor.
Mayor, police, journalist or teacher, all can become scapegoats.
Be aware of the role and position you take when entering the field. It takes leadership not to be tempted into harsh statements or to speak to someone in a pedantic manner. Listening, collecting difficult situations and stories is an important part of the strategy. (There are four game changers, which are a useful framework for a strategic approach).
Inside out
What you can do to turn around a difficult situation or a disturbed relationship, so that you can solve a problem more quickly together from within a group, and that brings us to Ann Baert (Van binnenuit 2016). The cover of the book contains a scale model.
For a full day we use a scale model per group or we make the connection between each person in the group on the floor with white tape. We indicate the intensity of the relationship with a solid or broken line, and the meaning with green and red. The envelope is used to indicate something that is going on, but cannot be said. If drawing lines is not easy, everyone can first do it on his or her scale model and return it to the layout on the floor via the facilitator.
The first principle: the balance of give and take
The second principle: the applicable ranking or order
The third principle: the right to belong