My cousin Alan and I are engaging in an experiment. Despite the ‘polarizing’ atmospheric conditions, we are delving into controversial topics together, topics which have historically been avoided at sacrosanct holiday gatherings—politics, religion, gender, immigration, guns, taxes—but as of late have been avoided with most of the folks we encounter in our daily lives. Attempting to steer clear of the torrent of discord, many of us have become guarded, sharing our views with only our most intimate, vetted confidantes.

Theories abound about this ‘silo or silence’ phenomenon. Some blame social media and the exploitation of platform anonymity which allows the devils of our lesser nature to scream our minimally investigated positions into an expanding universe of minimally monitored online discussions groups. Some blame the free speech advocacy free-for-all, an over-reach allegedly encouraging the degeneration of our collective ethics, the annihilation of any modicum of tact or restraint. Some blame the exponential advance of technology , placing in our hands devices that shower with us, commute with us, dine with us, all the while ready to parlay our reactive, impulsive responses into massive, greedily monetized chat firestorms. Whatever the cause, the increasingly explosive nature of open discourse seems a generally accepted reality in both professional and personal circles.

This communication conundrum has built walls around us, compromising our collective vision, as friends, as colleagues, as Americans. And unless our news is sourced from balanced feeds such as Allsides or 1440, (and we actually take the time to consider the full range of viewpoints presented there), our positions on ‘the issues’—crime, homelessness, school board controversies—are generated from biased perspectives. The result is that we cultivate increasingly narrowed beliefs that we reinforce with our increasingly narrowed choice of folks with whom we ‘chew the fat’ or of pundits to whom we listen.

I suspect we have succumbed to a pandemic of scorn. And while that scorn may fuel our sloppy rants, it may just as frequently prompt our silence. Having determined the person speaking to us, spouting views deemed beyond our capacity to comprehend, as either ignorant of the facts or overzealous in their beliefs, we keep our mouths shut. We conclude that person and/or their stance not worthy of our time or effort.

I have grown weary in the face of this societal food fight. And up until now I’ve been investing what little residual energy I’ve managed to conserve in excusing myself from the table. I’ve opted for escape, seeking sanctuary in the neutral zone of mindful, well-researched podcasts rather than attempting to critically listen, curiously explore, gracefully hunt down the possible nuances some other is trying, even if messily, to communicate. I stay clean that way, but I also could not claim to be consuming a balanced ‘community views’ diet.

******************

So back to Alan. My cousin and I were raised in nuclear families with phenomenally different philosophical orbits. His mother, my aunt, was a card- carrying member of the John Birch Society and a bible wielding Christian. My mother, Alan’s aunt, was an anti-war activist and a card-carrying member of Untied Religions Initiative. My sense is that he remembers his own mother as a tad less fanatical than I remember her. I’ve no doubt about my own mother’s history of fanaticism.

In any case, I think we would both agree that the mix made for Thanksgiving battlefields. And as my mother was the only one of four sisters who preached progressive, (A fact my aunts agreed may have been the result of her being dropped on her head as a small child.), I was schooled early on in the use of the raised voice and the pounded table in the making of a point, particularly an outnumbered one.

As I detail our shared family history, I am reminded that the volatile nature of discussion involving controversial topics is nothing new. So I now wonder if the key variable today, the variable most contributing to the current rent in our collective sanity fabric, is simply the numbers. When my mother was born in 1922 there were under 2 billion people on the planet and TVs did not exist. Now we are rapidly approaching a global population of 8 billion and I would not even be able to name the various screen and device alternatives we might wield to inflame our fixed perspectives.

******************

Once again, whatever the underlying causes, I recently approached my cousin about starting a dialogue. For the record, here is the precise wording I offered up in my emailed proposal:

“I am terribly concerned about our nation and the world, and I believe much of that dire state has been insidiously generated by the siloing of dialogue in the past decade, the loss of ‘across the aisle’ discussion so to speak. So, I would like you and I to attempt to bridge that gap a bit.”

Happily, Alan agreed.

******************

Neither of us was so foolish as to think we could climb into this shared raft and survive the rapids ahead without careful planning. We knew we needed to clarify our asks from this adventure, to establish ground rules. Who will steer and when? How do we avoid capsizing conditions? Why are we even trying to navigate these treacherous waters?

Alan was quite articulate in his answer to the last question. His reasons and expectations (abridged) are as follows:

To be able to vent, to bitch about whatever and be listened to with respect.
To be able to “try out ideas” and “subject [those ideas] to to sound debate and discussion.” His goal here, he goes on to clarify, is “to recognize our ideas are not locked in concrete, that the ideas and concepts of others may be rational in their experience base, may contribute to the evolution of concepts and ideals and policies ‘down the road.’
Trust, “the ability to to express a concept without being judged… the use of free speech even if what is uttered violates PC etiquette.” He notes this must be offered in return. “Trust is a two way street.”

Here are mine:

To restore my belief that middle path dialogue is possible, that two people at a time can challenge the rampant siloing trend of our culture.
To make broader sense of my world. To better understand how an individual I respect may thoughtfully hold views that seem anathema to my own.
To explore the facts together; to identify worthy sources that challenge our biases and mythologies—personal, professional, national, and beyond.
To honor the diversifying influence of experience and personality on our gut instincts about things, from justice to fairness to morality itself. To accept the inseparable nature of our feeling & thinking selves.

******************

I’m certainly not claiming our experiment is unique. You may have already forged these raging conversational rivers with a host of your politically polarized friends or co-workers. You may even be predicting our success or failure. Or, worse yet, the waste of precious time we are about to invest in this pointless, ill-fated endeavor. Be that as it may, with Alan’s permission, I am going to record our progress here. I am doing so more for our own consensus record keeping than any wisdom we hope to impart. But if I’ve triggered your interest, keep your eye out for future posts.

In the meantime, I will turn the authoring oars over to my cousin, letting him wrap up our first entry in his own words:

“Given the above, we venture forth in this endeavor to overcome those obstacles that impair effective communication between people regarding the issues of the day. We recognize that the current modes of communication are excessive and technologically challenging. So challenging that we question if society has learned how to effectively utilize these advances for the good of all versus stuffing one’s pockets. Compare this situation to yesteryear, when the trusted and effective modes of communication included word of mouth from trusted individuals or sealed letters. Things have changed and this change has been significant. Perhaps our efforts can serve as a means for others to open a door and start a conversation."

Linda J. Rohan, ARNP