Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Our differences are magic

People separated into different groups
Yuichiro Chino/Getty Images

Strand is co-founder and research director of Civity, a visiting professor at Marquette University Law School and professor emerita of Creighton University.

The definition of “civity” is “a culture of deliberately engaging in relationships of respect and empathy with others who are different.” The goal of Civity, the organization I co-founded, is building a civity culture.

So why the emphasis on others, on people who are different?

The short answer is that while difference carries the risk of violence and destruction, it also offers the potential for imagination, creativity, and resilience.


Quite a few years ago I read the transcript of a 2002 interview with Stephen Thom, a former senior conciliation specialist at the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service. He had been assigned to assess the potential for violence at a particular high school.

Thom’s description of the lunch or recess scene there was very familiar to me from my own days at a large and racially diverse public high school:

“Usually if you go to most high schools, you see clusters of Hispanic students here, African American students here, European-American students here, Asian students here, and you have pockets like this all over the school grounds.

According to Thom, he hoped to see what he called "cross-racial flow" across those "clusters" or “pockets.” Specifically, he was looking for students he called "diffusers":

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

“You want a certain percentage [of diffusers] in a school environment, to make sure that everybody knows what’s going on, versus everybody who doesn't know what’s going on, and they’re really living in a kind of a fear of the unknown, and it’s really a tense city. … But if you have this flow, usually it means, ‘Oh, I know that guy. He’s cool.’ ... That’s the health of the school.”

Our nation today is a lot like a high school cafeteria. Different tables equal different neighborhoods, jobs, and geographies. Different racial groups there equal, more broadly, different racial groups, economic groups, political groups, and religious groups.

Too often, we sit at our table, get close to the folks who are sitting with us, and look daggers at “those people” sitting at other tables.

When this happens, the spaces between tables become divides, and we are primed to fly off the handle.

But if there are “bridges” across those expanses of linoleum … if there are people who look across, toss a joke or a comment to someone at a different table, or actually get up and mingle ... trust begins to emerge. And when that happens, the difference transforms from a liability to an asset.

Iris Marion Young, author of “Justice and the Politics of Difference and Inclusion and Democracy,” made the case for viewing what she terms “social difference” as a “political resource.” Young wrote, “Inclusion of differentiated groups ... maximizes the social knowledge available to a democratic public."

Difference fuels creativity. In music. In art. In food. In ideas. In planning. And yes, even in politics.

Difference lies at the core of learning, of growth, of adaptation.

When we are trying to work our way through tough times or tackle gnarly problems, it’s helpful to have as much information and as many varied skills as possible. Different people know, see, and contribute different things. So, when we connect with other people who are different from us, the lines of communication can open up, and we can tap into a rich diversity of experiences and perspectives.

The key to differences being generative is approaching them as opportunities: engaging others who are different with curiosity, interest, and kindness – and with the horizontality of “I see you” respect and “I hear you” empathy.

We don’t need to move all the tables together. And we don’t need to make them all the same.

We do need to create the connections, the bridges, that make it possible for difference to do its magic.

Read More

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

Paper cut-outs of people and the earth.

Getty Images, Liliia Bila

A Right to Exist in Mutual Dignity

The question of Israel's right to exist isn't an abstract debate—it's written in the ashes of six million souls, in the tears of generations, and in the fierce determination of a people who refuse to let their story end in darkness. Any questioning of Israel's right to exist is to whisper that the Jewish people's centuries-long journey of survival, resilience, and hope, somehow matters less than others. As a Black American, I know too well how systems of oppression work to deny people their fundamental humanity.

When Hamas' charter calls for Israel's destruction, it echoes the same dehumanizing logic that has justified countless atrocities past and present. However, there is an inconvenient truth one must remain answerable to. Israel's right to exist doesn't permit any of us to look away from Palestinian suffering. Personal experiences with injustice inform the understanding that pain doesn't cancel out pain. Trauma doesn't negate trauma. The Jewish people have a right to security and self-determination in their uniquely established territorial homeland alongside—not in opposition to—the Palestinian people's right to dignity and self determination in their ancestral homeland.

Keep ReadingShow less
Interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce political divides
Polarization and the politics of love
Polarization and the politics of love

Interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce political divides

Think of the words “a” and “the.” Two of the smallest and most basic words in English, it is easy to not think very closely about which to use.

Yet when it comes to thinking about how to reduce perceived political divides, the difference becomes clear.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Democracy Forum: Maxine Rich

Maxine Rich, Program Manager with Common Ground USA at Search for Common Ground

Fulcrum Democracy Forum: Maxine Rich

Maxine Rich is the Program Manager with Common Ground USA at Search for Common Ground.

Rich applies proven methods from international peacebuilding to shore up social cohesion in the United States. She oversees efforts to reduce online polarization and build grassroots resilience to extremism.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Republican Party Can Build A Winning Coalition With Independents

People voting at a polling booth.

Getty Images//Rawpixel

The Republican Party Can Build A Winning Coalition With Independents

The results of the 2024 election should put to bed any doubts as to the power of independent voters to decide key elections. Independents accounted for 34% of voters in 2024, handing President Trump the margin of victory in every swing state race and making him only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. The question now is whether Republicans will build bridges with independent voters and cement a generational winning coalition or squander the opportunity like the Democrats did with the independent-centric Obama coalition.

Almost as many independents came out to vote this past November as Republicans, more than the 31% of voters who said they were Democrats, and just slightly below the 35% of voters who said they were Republicans. In 2020, independents cast just 26% of the ballots nationwide. The President’s share of the independent vote went up 5% compared to the 2020 election when he lost the independent vote to former President Biden by a wide margin. It’s no coincidence that many of the key demographics that President Trump made gains with this election season—Latinos, Asians and African Americans—are also seeing historic levels of independent voter registration.

Keep ReadingShow less