Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ask Joe: Dismantling mental constructs causing separation

Ask Joe: Dismantling mental constructs causing separation

Hi Joe,

I try to read the headlines and some articles in the NY Times and Washington Post as well as the Anchorage Daily News as I live in southcentral Alaska. I also subscribe to a few newsletters like The Fulcrum but don't always have time to read the great things written inside them.


I love what you are trying to do. But I have to remark that most of the lack of civility I see and hear is from politicians. Not to profile but it’s hard not to: it is mostly Republicans saying very accusatory and degrading stuff and often very false. These are the things that rile up their constituents. I have written to my US senators, both Republicans, and asked them to tone it down as all they are doing is feeding the volatility. Alaska got a lot of money from Joe Biden's infrastructure bill which both our senators voted for. But neither one of them have given credit to the President or to his administration.

I am looking at your book, it's on my to-read list. Thank you for your work! Don't tire of it!

Therese

Hello Therese,

Thanks so much for your question and your kind words. Your generosity and encouragement go a long way! And imagine what the world would look like if more of us did this on a regular basis: if we went out of our way to encourage, inspire and acknowledge others with no agenda or expectation of something coming back – not only with people we know and love, but also with strangers and perceived adversaries.

I appreciate your observation about the lack of civility coming from politicians. Yes, the whole nature of running for office is based on a deeply rooted internal polarization of “I have to win, and if you oppose me, you must lose.” I would suggest that this is a choice, not a fixed reality. Winning at all costs is a symptom of a culture that humiliates and disempowers the loser. As we have seen recently, officials and citizens will be willing to break down a system in order to not, at any cost, be perceived as a loser.

With so much uncertainty and anxiety, we get caught in our flight=flight-freeze response. This causes us to unintentionally perceive anything that is different or new as a threat; this shuts down our hearts. And as you see, the higher the anxiety and trauma, the more threat we feel.

And in politics at this time, any success on one side is perceived as a threat to the other. Any setback for one side is celebrated as a threat to the other. Any attempts at collaboration are seen as weakness.

As I break it down in my book, Fierce Civility, the true polarity of winning is “not”-winning, not losing. In other words, at its highest level, not winning doesn’t make you a loser; it means that you have been provided an opportunity to pick yourself up, do what they call in the military an “after-action report,” learn from that and eagerly jump back into the healthy competition with new skills and strategies. This is how we grow; this is the spirit of true creative debate and collaboration that leads to new, innovative solutions that get more buy-in from all involved. Win-win.

Yes, Therese, the rhetoric on the extremes of the political spectrum are, as you say, accusatory and degrading, and oftentimes, not consistent with the facts. However, from the Fierce Civility lens, by only naming Republicans as the ones who do this, you are setting up a false polarity. My examination here isn’t to make you wrong or for a need to win; but to offer another perspective. I am suggesting that the very act of doing a more nuanced and critical analysis of the situation is the very bridge and solution needed to remedy how bad things have gotten.

When you say Republicans, is it all Republicans, or perhaps the ones that are most extreme? Is it possible to know all Republicans? Probably not. So, if you conclude that it’s some Republicans who are using incivility to stoke more animosity, then the path to hope here is to find those Republicans who aren’t as extreme and build alliances with them.

In your statement, you only mention Republicans. Is it factually accurate that there are no non-Republicans who engage in rhetoric or strategies that are very accusatory, degrading or stretches the truth? In the process of reporting on a situation, it is virtually impossible to not put your own interpretation on it, no matter how close you come to accurately reporting the facts. From this perspective, you may come to the conclusion that non-Republicans also think, say and do things that cause harm and breakdown of civil discourse; they just may do it differently. Once again, you have the opportunity to distinguish which ones are truly committed to civil, inclusive solutions to our problems, and establish trusting relationships with them.

There’s plenty more to say about this. I’m simply offering a way to break through the mental constructs that create separation for the purpose of getting us back to talking to one another and honoring the humanity in each one of us. That starts with considering that we ALL are using rhetoric and strategies that disempower our opponents and widen the divide – just perhaps in different ways. The more we commit to relationships that are built on trust, safety, discourse that is both civil and fierce, and inclusivity, the quicker we overcome this destructive patterning we are in and shift the culture to one of mutual empowerment, even in the face of challenges.

Keep holding space for what is possible, Therese.

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

Have a question for Joe? Send an email to AskJoe@fulcrum.us.


Read More

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
A stage on the national mall with a crowd of people before it.

Attendees arrive during the Great American State Fair Kickoff Celebration on the National Mall on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Great American State Fair runs through July 10 celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America.

Al Drago / Getty Images

America’s Birthday Is Not a Trump Rally

Growing up in Ithaca, a college town in New York’s Finger Lakes region, I had a very different idea of the Fourth of July.

Independence Day was a community ritual. Families gathered before the parade, children buzzed with anticipation, veterans and local officials passed by, fire trucks and marching bands rolled through downtown, neighbors greeted one another by name, and best of all, fireworks lit up the night sky. The celebration was modest, local, and imperfect in the way all genuine civic life is imperfect. It fostered a sense of belonging.

Keep ReadingShow less
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing

A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.

(AFP via Getty Images)

Only Trump doesn’t care about housing

It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.

It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.

Keep ReadingShow less