Our Values: Is American culture as polarized as it seems?
Editor's note: This is the first in a series of posts on values by Dr. Wayne E. Baker, originally published on OurValues.org.
Last night in Chicago, I participated as a panelist in an experiment in civility: The (Un)Common Good, a new series of programs sponsored by the Illinois Humanities Council. (You can visit the public radio station’s site that airs the (Un)Common Good series here.)
Here’s how the council describes the program’s mission: “We’re presenting The (Un)Common Good series because we believe there is an urgent need to re-imagine new ways to discuss issues across ideologies, to model civil debate and dialogue between people who come down on different sides of an issue and to share information that strives to be unbiased, fact-based, and even-handed. We think that engagement with the humanities is a vehicle through which we can talk, listen and disagree.”
Part of the role of the panel was to challenge assumptions about the ideological segregation and polarized discussion in America today. My challenge, based on extensive research, was this: Are we really as polarized as we think? Are Americans really deeply divided when it comes to our most important values? There’s no doubt that politicians, party activists, and political elites are deeply divided and getting more so. But what about the rest of us? What about what political scientists unflatteringly call the “masses”?
Forgive me if I seem to be a bit of a populist, but I think what Americans believe is as important as what our politicians believe. When we look at what the “masses” believe, we find wide areas of agreement when it comes to the most important values. Moreover, any polarization that existed is actually shrinking over time. Now those are tall claims, and I can’t adequately substantiate them in a single post.
Next week, therefore, I will take each day to discuss a value that is strongly and widely held in America. For now, I’ll leave you with quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principles.”
Do you agree with Jefferson?
Are you seeing similar experiments in civility where you live?
Is there an upsurge in interest in new approaches to civility?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the senior faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com.
Comments
Dog Guy
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.
Values is a term of purchase and barter, entirely relative. For Jefferson, principles were absolute and non-negotiable. He and the other founders of this republic were therefore frequently uncivil in dealing with their legitimate British government. A man of values, rather than of principles, may be most civil--but don't trust him alone with your wife or daughter.
bedrog
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.
"Polarized' in the headline seems way too simplistically binary. We ---and others around the world caught up in the echo chamber effect of the internet age ( only hear what you already believe!!)-- are now a veritable' tower of babble', with increasing demonization of anyone who doesnt 100% agree with you. Locally this is an absolute plague ( or hoot, depending on your sense of humor!!), and is often reflected in a2.com's threads. Its particulary evident in the case of self proclaimed "leftists' who support right wing jihadists and in the case of 'conservatives' and 'libertarians who support radical- to -anarchist l totalitarians ( like militias).... and moderators: no names mentioned,so dont get all excessively "moderaty"!!
KJMClark
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
I had a discussion like this at work with a more conservative co-worker. We ended up agreeing on many points, but we had to discuss things a bit first. I'll use Topcat's example. I'm a fairly liberal guy. I would agree that the federal government should generally run a balanced budget, with the caveat that when the economy is doing well, there should be surpluses, and when the economy is doing badly, there should be deficits. The surpluses and deficits should balance out over time. What do you think Topcat? The problem with what's going on right now is that while Clinton (with arm twisting from Republicans in Congress) ran surpluses when we should have run surpluses, President Bush should have had some surpluses, but never did, largely due to the war in Iraq. Obama should be running deficits right now, because the economy is recovering from the housing bubble. I expect many conservatives to say that while they agree with the concept of balance over time, they disagree with running deficits now, even if we're only in a deficit now because the economy is bad. So I agree with Jefferson, that we may agree on the principle of generally balanced budgets, but somehow we have different opinions on what that means.
David Briegel
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
Top Cat, If civility means we have to listen to one more person extoll the genius of Reagan and the mythology of "trickle down", it ain't gonna happen. All these tax cuts and all this deregulation has gotten us right here where we are today. Tax Cut and Spend only works for the wealthiest among us. If we must continue to support every dictator that is an enemy of our enemy, we will be on the wrong side of history. Again !! Of course, in the Muslim world they won't be free unless we bomb thousands of them into oblivion. For Jesus and Democracy of course. The Perpetual War Profiteers have no say.
demistify
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 10:26 p.m.
So far, Dr. Baker seems to be getting a negative response. The prevalent interpretation of civility seems to be that the other side should hold their tongue while I go about bashing them.
Top Cat
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
If "civility" means that those of us vocally opposing $1.5 trillion deficits, 9% unemployment and the grow government first policies of the current adminstration are supposed to back down, smile and shut up.....fuhgetaboutit.
David Briegel
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.
Orwell is correct. Virtually nothing has changed re the banking industry that caused our bubble to burst and the same people are doing the same things as they did previously. Nobody went to jail. Nobody paid any fines. Everyday you hear about their bahavior in what is left of the free media and everyday it is ignored. The ratings agencies, all of whom failed the honesty test, are still rating the junk AAA and our citizens will lose again. Sooner or later. The hired hands in Congress see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil except about the "other". And the other is us. And you will never hear a Tea Partier speak of these issues except to blame Obama. The self segregation post by dotdash is spot on. We are self segragated in our own ignorance of the "other".
G. Orwell
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
Is it possible that there isn't much of a difference between people but the media and our government is purposely dividing us? Liberal vs. conservative, democrats vs. republicans, blacks vs. whites, etc. The old adage comes to mine. "Divide and conquer." If the average person is so occupied arguing about menial issues which are hyped by our media, our leaders can get away with just about anything. Such as the 24-27 trillion dollar bank bailout. Giving our money to foreign banks, corporations, even our media. Could it ba a slight of hand by the ruling class?
dotdash
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 5:49 p.m.
I fear that we are more segregated in our lives and that does lead to polarization; that we only watch channels that espouse our views, we only talk to like-minded people, we only read like-minded publications. Like the tea partiers on TV: *I don't know a single person who thinks like that*, and I'm sure those people don't know a single person who thinks like me. So we both get to say "Who are those crazy people?" Maybe we are not polarized so much as self-segregated and not listening to each other.