I was reading through the quarterly Boston College publication, “C21 Resources,” from my grad school alma mater, and I appreciated the various perspectives on the trap of polarization that has shackled much of the body of humanity these days. The guest editor, Brian Robinette, summarized the turbulent societal malaise well in his opening article:

It is commonplace to describe our current situation as polarized. Our politics are feverishly partisan and our news outlets fragmented and at odds. School board meetings and curricula spark widespread controversy, while our public institutions are subject to growing distrust. Sporting events, corporate sponsorships, social media platforms, and public demonstrations are the latest fronts in our so-called “culture wars.” Even our churches and families are increasingly the sites of contested ideologies and identity-formation, turning what should be places of refuge and belonging into hotspots of painful dispute.

Polarization is not just any problem. It is a problem that encompasses and exacerbates many others. More of an underlying dynamic than a specific issue, polarization distorts the field of communication that allows informed discussion, healthy debate, and shared planning to take place. It is challenging enough to gain consensus on large-scale problems such as climate change, health care, immigration, racism, poverty, and international relations. But when a partisan mentality sets in, even a good faith effort to understand “the other side” can seem a betrayal of values. We feel a strong affinity for those who think like us and an equally strong animus toward those who do not. We fall prey to in-group bias and insulate ourselves from acknowledging our contradictions. Meanwhile, we readily believe the worst about our rivals and suspect their motives－and at times their basic goodness. We take security in righteous indignation, certain that our side is just, while the very existence of our opponents seems a threat to our tenuous identities.

“Meeting Polarization with Loving Solidarity” by Brian D. Robinette, C21 Resources, Fall 2023

It is tempting to feel powerless in relation to the enormous tide of vehement and at times violent discord around us, but there is an answer, a way out, a way to remain in the world, but not be of it. We are better than this.

The world’s problems will not be solved by a winner-takes-all approach. We cannot root out evil and be left with paradise. That’s the implicit belief behind most people who “fight the good fight,” isn’t it? If we resist and destroy evil, wipe it from the face of the earth, we will somehow magically be left with a land flowing with milk and honey. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth system of justice does not constrain to a life of tranquil liberty, rather, it leads directly a world filled with half-blind, toothless wretches.

When was the last time you took the time to understand the motives, beliefs, concerns, and goals of someone you’ve deemed to be “on the other side?” I’ve been make a deliberate effort in this regard, and I’ve found that the more earnest and genuine I am in this regard, the more ready I am to put a good interpretation on their arguments than I am to condemn them as false. And that builds trust. Mutual trust. And respect. It’s not a weak or conciliatory stance, in fact, it typically leads somewhere mutually constructive.

Not everyone who disagrees with our point of view is inherently evil. In fact, few, if any, truly are. As M. Cathleen Kaveny and Julie Hanlon Rubio noted in “Learning to Argue Well” later in the C21 Resources publication:

Instead, we can turn to Saint Augustine and his insight that all people act sub specie boni, under the aspect of good. All people, even people with whom you profoundly disagree, are not themselves evil. Rather, your conversation partners are pursuing good as they see it, and even if you regard this pursuit to be flawed, it remains true to their own perspective on what is good.

If you see people in this way, recognizing their goodness as well as their flaws, you can break out of the deeply entrenched culture war mindset and ask two questions of yourself and interlocutors. Positively, what values are you trying to uphold? And negatively, what is it that you fear most if the other side wins?

“Learning to Argue Well” by M. Cathleen Kaveny and Julie Hanlon Rubio, C21 Resources, Fall 2023

Reacting to the world automatically, judging through prejudiced lenses, and constantly taking offense are the hallmark of a person who has given in to the false notion that hatred and evil are more powerful than love and righteousness. You can do better. Righteous indignation is a poor substitute for righteousness because righteousness is born of fidelity to the one and only source of power on earth, if not in the universe: love.

Evil has no power of its own and evil, when left to its own devices, destroys itself.