A core idea to my work on pluralism and belonging is that working with those we disagree with does not mean papering over our differences. It does not mean ignoring where we disagree, and it does not mean pretending conflicts don’t exist.
The attempted assassination of a major political party’s candidate this weekend confirmed the urgency of this message.
The belief that violence is the only option is an outgrowth of toxic political polarization. So is the urge to crawl in a cave with our closest allies. While both feelings are natural, neither will solve the crisis of democracy we find ourselves in. The path forward requires us to engage with deep, divisive, and complex differences.
I am grateful for the many organizations who made or were mentioned in strong statements against this violence already. I am also grateful to work in a field that doesn’t shy away from hard conversations and doesn’t ignore when we disagree.
Creating connections that work towards pro-social goals, despite differences we may have, is the only way to get out of this mess. One of the best statements I saw in response to the attempted assassination was a quote of Aurelian Craiutu by Andy Hanauer on LinkedIn:
"If you think we are on the brink of a civil war, then get off Twitter and Instagram right away and start talking to your neighbors, left and right. Organize at the grassroots level to pursue modest but concrete goals to improve the life of your community ... We shall not be able to maintain our free way of life if we are not prepared to leave behind our bubbles and take seriously the ideas of our critics and opponents."
This works at the neighborhood and nonprofit strategy level too. To that end, let’s talk about the mechanics of collaborating with political or nonprofit market competitors. I was already talking about this in last week’s blog. Today, I want to follow up with how you actually get started implementing these ideas.
During my time at Aspen Institute’s Religion & Society Program, we did something some may think impossible: we created a cohort across sectors and ideologies of religious freedom experts who were committed to working together to push forward the entire field of work despite deep disagreements.
So how did we get them in a room together, week after week for hours at a time? And how did we create an environment where relationships were not only begun, but trust and impact were generated?
Five intentions and practices were necessary:
Invite a third party in to moderate- Allow that partner to build relationships and trust with all participants in advance of a gathering.
Name the differences – Your partners know it’s there, and you know it’s there. Everyone will feel more comfortable once it’s named and acknowledged. (Pro Tip: It’s best if these are named by the third-party moderator based on prior private interviews and 1:1 conversations. If some differences are too deep, mutually agree to acknowledge and then leave them to the side in this context.)
Start with relationships, but don’t assume trust – Now that it’s been made clear no one is interested in ignoring differences, people can actually get to know one another. Allow your partners to enter your space as real people, get to know them, and allow trust to develop naturally as relationships are created and sustained. Strong personal relationships keep the divisions in the room from wrecking the place.
Emphasize shared values – If we’re all in this field, the chances that our values overlap to a high degree. When strategies and goals differ, go back to these values.
Get creative and iterative – This work requires innovation, don’t be afraid to try something different or think out of the box. Sometimes new ideas are a spark to reassess some of your earlier decisions. Design an iterative process from the start that allows learnings and better relationships built over time to improve the outcomes.
I have previously written about how this type of collabotation (remember that word from last week?) shows up in the pro-democracy space:
“I’ve been learning more and more about the hundreds of organizational players in pro-democracy movements - the bridgers, equity builders, hate-crime preventers, structural change enthusiasts, civic engagement specialists, and funders of all the above. One of the most notable learnings along the way is how many of these are looking for shared community with organizational peers across the spectrum of pro-democracy efforts.”
The work of the pro-democracy field is crucial. With insights from this field, in addition to the five key intentions and practices, other fields can improve their ability to work with communities that have deep disagreements and a history of competition.
We all have a responsibility to each other. It starts with the small-scale, in our individual interactions and organizational communities, and impacts our national cultural and political climate.
Join me in committing to ensuring our individual and collective actions create an environment where political violence is unthinkable once again. Let’s ensure this weekend serves as an important reminder that our democracy is built of individual people and organizations and communities. Our actions on an individual scale impact the whole of our democracy.
We all have a part to play, and I intend to do mine with care.
Comentários