By Julie Schumacher Cohen
It has become axiomatic to observe that the United States is highly polarized.
In a 2020 Pew Research Center poll, eight in ten registered voters in both political camps said “their differences with the other side were about core American values.” Not only is the public divided substantively about policy issues, but it is marked by what political scientists call “affective polarization,” with increased distrust and dislike impacting social relationships. In addition to these tensions, the country is also not immune to political violence, as was displayed during the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
As future leaders, college students are an important part of our civic reality; this national context is the environment in which they are learning. The 2016 American Freshman survey called that cohort of incoming students “the most politically polarized” in its history.
In 2017 at the University of Scranton, a team of faculty and staff colleagues began a program called Bursting our Political Bubbles: Dialogue Across Differences. Through co-curricular dialogues on such topics as immigration, the NFL kneeling protests, guns, and cancel culture, we seek to help students better understand others’ perspectives, and what values, experiences and motivations undergird them. We have worked with nonprofit partner Essential Partners to incorporate their reflective, structured methods.
Inaugurated in 2017 by a team of staff and faculty colleagues at the University of Scranton, Bursting our Political Bubbles: Dialogue Across Differences, a series of co-curricular dialogues intended to “help students better understand the perspectives of others as well as their undergirding values. Photo courtesy of the University of Scranton.
In keeping with intergroup “contact theory,” the dialogue groups are designed to foster “equal status” with a communication agreement that sets time limits so that no one voice dominates, allows participants to “pass” if they are not ready or do not wish to respond, and clarifies that “civility does not mean lack of dissent,” to make space for necessary disagreement.
Such dialogue is not new. Back in the 15th Century, St. Ignatius of Loyola provided his own guidance to the Jesuits attending the Council of Trent, urging the Fathers to “understand the meaning, learnings and wishes of those who speak” and to express views with “humility and sincerity.” Communication across difference has also long been promoted by political theorists, such as Jurgen Habermas, John Stuart Mill, and Hannah Arendt, as beneficial to citizens in a democracy.
So what does such dialogue yield? Working with faculty partners Teresa Grettano (English & theatre) and Jessica Nolan (psychology), we designed a mixed-methods approach to assessing the effectiveness of political dialogues.
Our goal was not to change anyone’s attitude about a particular topic, but rather to shift participants’ attitudes towards the “other” and about engaging around contentious issues. Our results to date have shown that participation in a single dialogue session can increase participants’ willingness to engage in dialogue across differences going forward; it can also result in a lowering of the perception that political dialogue is a “waste of time.”
The latter was underscored by March 2022 dialogue participants who conveyed that despite widening political differences which make dialogue harder than ever – due to COVID-19, contentious elections, and the murder of George Floyd – the surfacing of inequities and tensions does create an opportunity to address longstanding American problems.
Students completing post-dialogue essays have also revealed more about their learning, which may be understood in terms of three categories offered by education scholar Rachel Wahl: “hermeneutic” where it deepens understanding of other people; “deliberative” where it increases understanding of political issues; and “process” where it builds capacity for difficult conversations.
We see “hermeneutic” learning in a student who shared that the dialogue “helped me to know [my peers] beyond their name/major/hometown.” “Deliberative” learning can be observed in another student’s assertion that, “If we stay in our political bubble…we aren’t learning anything. When we engage in dialogue with those we disagree with, it challenges us not only to defend our own opinion but to also consider the other side of the issue.” Students wrote about the dialogue “process,” sharing that they “enjoyed how there was no back and forth arguments,” giving space for reflection. Articulation and listening were also key themes. One student concluded that most participants “could effectively communicate about social issues even when they disagree, which is truly thrilling.” Another underscored how “just simply listening has a profound effect on the way we hear and understand people.”
The learning benefits of dialogue are significant for institutions of higher education, particularly Jesuit institutions. At the same time, it is not a panacea. For instance, my colleague Dr. Grettano urges participants to “keep in mind the ‘Ignatian presupposition’ or ‘plus sign’ to the extent possible”; suspending judgment of another can risk downplaying problematic behaviors or prejudices. Further research around dialogue and depolarization is also necessary and ongoing. Some political scientists have pointed out that reducing partisan conflict in the American past “has sometimes come at the expense of the rights of, and justice for, marginalized minority groups.”
While it seems obvious, and necessary, to want to bring down our political temperatures, some amount of disruption and confrontation is often essential for societies to reject and overcome oppression. As the University of Pennsylvania’s Diana Mutz has written in Hearing the Other Side, there is an “inherent tension between promoting a society with enthusiastically participative citizens and promoting one imbued with tolerance and respect for differences of opinion.”
Can we dialogue to decrease intolerance and foster better understanding and still take principled stands against our political opponents through activism and advocacy? If we seek a future with nonviolent approaches that address longstanding injustices, it’s clear that the practice of dialogue is one important, though not exclusive, educational component.
As Pope Francis wrote in his most recent encyclical Frattelli Tutti, “Authentic reconciliation does not flee from conflict, but is achieved in conflict, resolving it through dialogue and open, honest and patient negotiation.”
College campuses remain important places for such opportunities.
Julie Schumacher Cohen is assistant vice president for community engagement and government affairs and chair of the community-based learning board at the University of Scranton. She is also a doctoral student in political science at Temple University.
The featured cover photo (above) is courtesy of Priscilla Du Preez via Unsplash.