It's not insignificant that Haidt acknowledges in his book that the original research that resulted in "The Righteous Mind" was motivated by his (partisan) desire to give liberals some leverage toward conducting campaigns that were more appealing to conservatives. In the process he admits coming to a deeper understanding of, and appreciation for, the foundations of the ethical and policy positions favored by those very conservatives. That is to say, he became more tolerant himself; he moved toward "the middle."
His book, and yours, should be required reading for every citizen. (In my humble and exceedingly tolerant opinion.)
The positive relationship between civic participation and tolerance is so interesting. I'm not surprised. I've seen this in groups and in coalition work. When people are invited to take responsibility for decision-making about something, many begin to see an issue with more nuance and humility than if they'd been asked only for their opinion. Few political/civic issues are simple and that becomes more obvious the closer one is to them. When one is tasked with making a decision, one can see how grey things are on either side of that decisional line. This can generate humility.
Because of this, I think that efforts to heal toxic political polarization simply by exposing people to those of differing faiths, ideologies, identities are insufficient to promote civic health (same for all the well-intentioned efforts to heal political division by side-stepping politics... ) Instead, I think that added to these efforts need to be ones in which people exercise real, shared responsibility, make decisions, and even make mistakes.
Great points. And I think your point about "real, shared responsibility" is especially important. Group exercises and training hypotheticals can only get you so far.
It's not insignificant that Haidt acknowledges in his book that the original research that resulted in "The Righteous Mind" was motivated by his (partisan) desire to give liberals some leverage toward conducting campaigns that were more appealing to conservatives. In the process he admits coming to a deeper understanding of, and appreciation for, the foundations of the ethical and policy positions favored by those very conservatives. That is to say, he became more tolerant himself; he moved toward "the middle."
His book, and yours, should be required reading for every citizen. (In my humble and exceedingly tolerant opinion.)
The positive relationship between civic participation and tolerance is so interesting. I'm not surprised. I've seen this in groups and in coalition work. When people are invited to take responsibility for decision-making about something, many begin to see an issue with more nuance and humility than if they'd been asked only for their opinion. Few political/civic issues are simple and that becomes more obvious the closer one is to them. When one is tasked with making a decision, one can see how grey things are on either side of that decisional line. This can generate humility.
Because of this, I think that efforts to heal toxic political polarization simply by exposing people to those of differing faiths, ideologies, identities are insufficient to promote civic health (same for all the well-intentioned efforts to heal political division by side-stepping politics... ) Instead, I think that added to these efforts need to be ones in which people exercise real, shared responsibility, make decisions, and even make mistakes.
Great points. And I think your point about "real, shared responsibility" is especially important. Group exercises and training hypotheticals can only get you so far.