Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

America’s most wicked problem

Lisa K. Swallow is the co-founder and executive director of Crossing Party Lines, a national nonprofit creating an open dialogue between Americans with dissimilar ideologies. She has developed a series of workshops teaching the concepts, skills, and techniques for having civil, respectful conversations with people who view the world differently. Listening with a curious open mind is the cornerstone of her work.

Toxic polarization is wreaking havoc with our democracy, driving wedges between elected officials, alienating co-workers, and tearing friendships and families apart. It fuels the divisiveness between sides on almost every issue we face, from COVID causes to immunization; environmental concerns to global policy; abortion to gender rights. It is a wicked problem, characterized by animosity towards anyone who opposes our ideas about how to address the problems we care most about.


The term wicked problem may be new to many readers. According to Jon Kolko, author of Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, a wicked problem is “a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems.”

Sound familiar? Kolko goes on to say, “These problems are typically offloaded to policy makers, or are written off as being too cumbersome to handle en masse. Yet these are the problems—poverty, sustainability, equality, and health and wellness—that plague our cities and our world and that touch each and every one of us.” While Kolko does not include polarization in his list of wicked problems, it fits the criteria perfectly.

Over the past few decades, some of our brightest minds have turned their attention to the problem of toxic polarization. The PEW Research Center tracks a range of indicators from ideological uniformity and Congressional voting patterns to attitudes. Political scientists study its impact on the health of our democracy. Neuroscientists examine the relationship between polarization and the brain. Psychologists explore beliefs and behaviors that contribute to it. Educators are asking how they can better prepare our young people to either survive or reduce it.

Meanwhile hundreds of organizations have found ways to translate researchers’ insights about the causes and contributing factors of polarization into interventions designed to address this wicked problem. Recognizing that despite their different approaches, all these organizations are striving to bridge the divides that are tearing us apart, this work has come to be referred to as “Bridging.”

At present, the bridging community is comprised of more than 500 organizations. Some offer opportunities to observe debates or discussions, others to watch documentaries or films portraying bridging in action. Some teach skills and concepts that make talking with the “other” possible, while others offer opportunities to participate in conversations across differences by providing conversation guides or facilitated gatherings. Many bridging organizations offer more than one of these approaches.

To anyone questioning the investment of time, energy, and money into reducing toxic polarization, this may appear as a shot-gun approach. They may wonder why we don’t focus all our energies on one tried-and-true solution. The problem is, because toxic polarization is a wicked problem, there is no single solution. According to Horst Rittel who popularized the concept of wicked problems, “Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improve a situation rather than solve it.”

Framing bridging as a wicked problem helps us recognize the value in having a wide range of solutions. Rather than seeing our collection of work as a shotgun approach, we can appreciate the way each offers its own piece of the puzzle. What really differentiates our collective work from a shotgun approach, though, is the reliance on science and proof. To ensure that we are investing in work that is bringing about positive change, the Bridging Movement Alignment Council (BMAC) has designed the Social Cohesion Impact Measure (SCIM) tool for measuring the impact of individual interventions. This follows closely on the heels of last year’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge, a mega study funded by the Civic Health Project and others that tested over 250 interventions and proved the effectiveness of many of the approaches used by these organizations today.

Kolko advises us that to solve wicked problems we must "design with versus design for." The National Week of Conversation (NWOC) is an example of the bridging field doing exactly that as we invite all Americans to work with us to solve America’s overarching wicked problem. NWOC is YOUR opportunity to discover how you can play a part in reducing toxic polarization.

Over 100 bridging organizations will be hosting events during the week of April 17-23 and posting them on CitizenConnect.US, where you can explore a wide range of experiences that will help you become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

·Do you want to learn more about what bridging is and why it matters? Sign up for one of the many speaker events or panel discussions.

·Do you want to see bridging in action? Join us for a screening of a bridging-related documentary or watch a debate between civil, respectful, thoughtful people who happen to be on different sides of the political spectrum.

·Do you want to experience a new way of talking politics, one that is civil and respectful and often fun? Participate in one of the many conversations hosted by bridging organizations, choosing the formats and topics that appeal to you most.

·Do you want to develop skills that will help you navigate difficult conversations in real life? Attend one of the many workshops teaching skills and concepts that have been proven to improve the chances that your next difficult conversation will be more productive than your last.

What all these experiences have in common is a focus on reducing toxic polarization through listening and connecting with people who view the world differently than you do. Through conversation.

The National Week of Conversation is risk-free. It offers seven full days of programming. – a smorgasbord of opportunities that you can sample for free. Most are virtual, allowing you to help address one of our country’s most wicked problems from the comfort of your own home.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep ReadingShow less