Newsletter 105 — April 13, 2023
From Beyond Intractability's Co-Directors
Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess
April 13, 2023
This post combines responses to two different, but highly inter-related, problems. The first is the tendency to oversimplify complex intractable conflicts to simple "us-vs-them," "good guys-vs-bad guys" narratives. Almost all difficult conflicts are more complex than that, with many different issues, interests and needs, "good guys" and "bad guys" on all sides, and helpful and harmful actions being taken by all sides as well.
The second problem is escalation, which we have long asserted is "the most destructive force on the planet," because it causes people to do all sorts of terrible things that they would ordinarily not consider doing (including, at the extreme, genocidal violence and, potentially, nuclear war). "The enemy is not the other side," we tell our students and anyone else who will listen; "it is conflict escalation."
This section first examines what causes these two problems and what their effects are. We then introduce several things that we and others can do to start addressing these problems successfully (many more suggestions will follow in subsequent newsletters). The good news is that there is a great deal we can do to get out of the oversimplification-escalation dynamic.
Us-Versus-Them Over-simplification
As we said above, most intractable conflicts are very complex. But people, by nature, tend to have trouble dealing with and, therefore, dislike complexity. So, they try to simplify complex narratives into something they can more easily understand and categorize—some things are "good," others are "bad." New information that corresponds to the narratives that they already believe are "accurate." Information that contradicts what they already believe is "wrong." People trust themselves more than they trust others, and when there is a question of who is right and who is wrong, or who is good and who is bad, most people will automatically put themselves and people like them on the "good side," while they will put people who are different from them (and especially those who are opposed to things they want or believe) on the "bad" side.
These very different world views then drive the sense that the other side in a conflict is "bad:" "selfish," "self-serving," "hateful," or even "evil." We tend to assume that it is their choices and their behavior, that is causing our own problems, not our own choices and our behavior. Not only is that false (on both sides), but such over-simplification is problematic for other reasons.
First, it tends to spiral. If we blame "them" for everything that goes wrong, they will likewise respond by blaming "us." If we lash out about that, they will lash back—sometimes escalating the rhetoric, perhaps even adding in a negative behavior.
These tit-for-tat exchanges can continue, sometimes escalating to full-blown violence, even war. Although "war" is not something we used to worry about in the United States, there are some prominent people who are publicly suggesting that "civil war is inevitable," or that it is already happening. Even short of war, the protests we saw in the United States in the summer of 2020 and then again on January 6, 2021 suggest that a return to large-scale violence such as we last saw in the 1960s and 70s is certainly possible.
Another problem with such over-simplification is that it assumes that the solution to "the problem," whatever the problem is, is to just "get rid of" the other side, or subdue them, over power them, or, perhaps, convince them that they are wrong and you are right. None of those approaches is likely to be possible, or to work, because the other side thinks the same way. So the situation is like an equally-matched tug-of-war. But unlike tug-of-war, in which one side eventually prevails, and the game is over, the other side in these contests gets up, dusts themselves off, and comes right back to the fight. So the fight goes on and on, often getting worse, not better, for all sides.
Avoiding and Reversing Over-Simplification
Like many problems, over-simplification is most easily "solved" by not doing it in the first place. But that's hard to do--everyone oversimplifies all the time out of necessity. We can't possibly take in, store, and understand every bit of information that comes our way. But if we are aware of the dangers of over-simplification, and we are aware that conflict narratives that say that "the problem is the other sides' fault" are almost always wrong, that's a good start.
Rather than going along with that narrative, and the related notion that everything would be fine if "they" either understood the truth, came around to our point of view, were resoundingly defeated, or simply disappeared, and working toward that, it is important to find out what is really going on and then base our response on that more complex, nuanced understanding of the problem.
In almost all cases, "they" are not going to do any of the things the simple-narrative people hope for (such as changing their minds or disappearing). Most often also, all sides are in some way contributing to the problem, by doing things that unnecessarily make the other side angry or afraid, and hence drive the escalation spiral.
So a second step, after rejecting the simple "it's their fault" narrative, is to examine if and how things you or your group are doing may be contributing to the problem. An example is the campaign to "defund the police" that was prominent in 2020 after George Floyd was killed. Most people demanding the defunding of the police, it turns out, did not really mean the complete elimination of the police. It meant diverting some of police budgets to other uses — for instance, to mental health workers — who could perhaps do a better job of responding to people suffering mental health crises. The "defund the police" language was unnecessarily alarming, and just created enemies among people who might have been allies in the broader campaign for police reform and accountability.
How should we get this more complex, nuanced view of the problem? We need to learn more about the other side--not about how bad they are, but why they believe what they believe, why they respond to us the way they do, and why they advocate for the things we think are so awful. Most often, people who look to be stupid or evil actually have good reasons for thinking and acting as they do. If we understand those reasons, we will be in a much stronger position to work with them to try to solve our many mutual problems.
Learn Why The Other Side Thinks and Acts The Way They Do
So how do we do this? For a start, we need to start reading, watching and listening to things the other side reads, watches, and listens to. That will help us understand where they are getting their ideas, and what they are basing their attitudes and behaviors on.
You do not necessarily need to read/watch/listen to the most extreme spokespeople on the other side, as that will likely make you mad and convince you that they really are as bad as you thought. BUT, it will give you an insight into why others who listen/read/watch those people come to the conclusions that they do. Listening to Donald Trump infuriates us. But it also shows us why so many people believe what he has to say, and it gives us a sense of the issues that they are concerned about.
Equally or more valuable is reading/watching/ listening to moderates on the other side. These people are much more likely to explain the legitimate concerns, fears, interests, and needs of people who differ politically from you. They will explain what your side is doing to make them angry or fearful, and what you can do, perhaps, to improve relationships with them and people like them.
You Don't Want to Do That or Don't Care What They Think? Consider the Alternative!
While you can say (or think) that you don't want to improve relationships with people like "them," if we don't, our polarization and escalation is just going to get worse, and we are not going to get anywhere on solving any of our pressing problems. It has long ago been proven that politics is a back-and-forth proposition. One side wins, then the other side wins. In the United States, and in many other places, the power of the two sides is approximately equal, so neither side can successfully impose its will on the other. The alternative to cooperation is political stalemate and dysfunction, most likely accompanied by increasingly dangerous hyperpolarization and escalation.
Take, for example, the conflict over race and racism, particularly as it is being played out in the turbulent debate surrounding "diversity, equity, and inclusion" programs. The Progressive Left sees these programs as a critical to abolishing systemic racism. Since the overwhelmingly White meritocracy has ruled for so long, and racial minorities have been downtrodden in so many domains (education, jobs, housing, income, wealth, health, etc.), Progressives assert that the way to remedy this is to get Whites to understand that they have been unfairly "privileged" and empowered for far too long. Now is the time, they say, to actively remedy that by having Whites step aside and let people of color lead. "Diversity," to Progressives, means more influential people of color and fewer and less influential Whites.
However, Progressives' definition of "diversity" most often does not pertain to ideas and sociocultural values. While "diversity" at predominantly liberal universities means inclusion of non-Whites (as well as those marginalized because of gender-identity), it does not mean inclusion of those with more conservative, traditional, and largely Christian values. This is why we are hearing so many stories of people being "canceled" for failing to toe the Progressive line on race.
Ibram X. Kendi asserts, there is no such thing as being "not racist." Whites, he says, are either racists or "anti-racists." That means anyone who doesn't take a stand, who doesn't actively work against racism in the ways that Progressives demand, is a racist (in other words, "evil"). In addition, Kendi and other "anti-racists" assert that those who advocate for treating each person as an individual, not as a representative of their race is, by his definition, a racist. He rejects the notion that a person's value derives from their accomplishments (as that is a measure tainted by the tilted playing field), and characteristic of the misnamed "meritocracy."
Virtue, according to Kendi and other "anti-racists" is determined solely by race. So whites should be shamed and held back for their "privilege," giving the formerly oppressed the opportunity to catch up, or even move ahead. Other class-based measures of relative advantage and disadvantage are considered irrelevant, as is the extent to which a person worked hard, or otherwise contributed to society doesn't matter. Race and, to some, gender identity are the only things that matter in determining who is admirable, and who is not.
The Importance of Human Needs — To Everyone
John Burton and other human needs theorists in the conflict resolution field long ago explained, very persuasively in our view, that deep-rooted conflicts are largely caused by perceived threats to an individual's ability to meet their fundamental human needs, most importantly to assure their security, identity, and recognition. It is not hard to see how the Progressive view might be seen as a threat to the ability of Conservative Whites to meet all three of these needs.
The notion that one should be ashamed of their race and their socio-cultural heritage because they are "privileged" is a slam on a person's fundamental identity. Liberals used to argue that it was unfair to demonize someone for an attribute they were born with, such as their gender or race. But now it is okay to do that to Whites and men to "get even." But many whites and men don't feel any better about that now than Blacks did way back when (and still do when it happens). It is an affront to one's identity either way.
Also, when people get fired for speaking their minds, when they get denied a good education because their ancestors were "privileged," (as happens when Whites are denied college entrance because of their race, or advanced placement classes are cancelled in elementary or high schools because they tend to be disproportionately White), this is an attack on Whites' security, as it threatens their ability to get or keep a good job, and to have a secure livelihood.
And lastly, "recognition" is the need to have others recognize your needs and empathize with you. In Kendi's anti-racism movement, Blacks and other people of color should be recognized, but Whites should not. But recognition, along with identity and security, are fundamental needs to Whites, just as they are to Blacks.
When the ability of people to meet their fundamental human needs are attacked, Burton argued, people will fight back hard. And they will continue to fight until they feel secure, until they feel that their identities are valued, and they are fairly recognized for who they are and what they do or have done.
If Progressives would read, watch, and/or listen to some of the Conservative responses to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, they would better understand why conservatives oppose them and why they are most likely to fight long and hard against them and the ideas that are being taught in them.
Wouldn't it be better to go back to an anti-racism approach more akin to Martin Luther King's which, like Gandhi's, acknowledged the humanity, the value, and even the "truth" of the other side, and sought to work with them, rather than against them for a future everyone would want to live in? And, if this moral appeal is not enough, consider the possibility that the anti-White agenda will lead to Progressive electoral defeat and, quite possibly, a second Trump presidency.
Note: The above comments are offered from the perspective of two people who have spent their entire careers trying to help people escape the destructive spiral of runway conflict, not as an advocate for a particular side. Our goal is to figure out how we can bring people in the U.S. and other deeply-divided societies together in ways that repair increasingly dysfunctional democracies, resist authoritarian tendencies, and prevent large-scale civil unrest. When the power of both sides is roughly equal, power-over strategies simply do not work. They just lead to continued polarization, escalation, and eventual catastrophe. We are trying to help advocates on both sides to understand this before we jump off the metaphorical cliff. We all need to switch to a power-with strategy to begin to work together to solve our mutual problems, true racism being one of them, unbridled escalation being another.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
Once a week or so, we, the BI Directors, share some thoughts, along with new posts from the Hyper-polarization Blog and and useful links from other sources. We used to put this all together in one newsletter which went out once or twice a week. We are now experimenting with breaking the Newsletter up into several shorter newsletters. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017. NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....
