4 Myths About Our Toxic Division and How to Overcome Them

Let’s face it: some people are skeptical of efforts to reduce political contempt and toxic polarization. 

We get it. When the political and cultural stakes are very high, it’s only natural to be skeptical of messages aimed at helping us get along better. Even many who agree on the importance of this work often see it as a “side quest” — a nice thing, sure, but something that can wait until we tackle more immediate dangers. 

We need to persuade more people, from across the political spectrum, why this work is vitally important — why it’s arguably the source of many other problems that upset and threaten us. We must persuade politically passionate people that they can continue working towards their goals while also working on reducing political contempt. 

There are a few common mythical beliefs about polarization that underlie a lot of objections to this work. Four common myths are: 

1. “It’s normal for Americans to disagree. The problem isn’t serious.”
2. “We should be polarized when the other side is so horrible.” 
3. “Reducing polarization means asking people to compromise with extremists.”
4. “We need our animosity to defeat the ‘bad guys.’”

Let’s look at what these myths are missing. 

Myth #1: “It’s normal for us to disagree. People overstate the problem of our divides.” 

It’s entirely normal for us to disagree on issues — and even to strongly and passionately disagree. What’s unhealthy and dangerous is the contempt and fear that more and more of us have for people on the “other side.” (This is sometimes referred to as “affective polarization” — with “affect” referring to our emotions.) Our contempt and fear contribute to a self-reinforcing cycle of anger and hatred. 

Learn more: Read our piece “Isn’t it normal for us to disagree?”

Myth #2: “We should be polarized when the other side is so horrible.” 

It’s rational for us to have concerns about our political opponents. However, we must recognize that conflict dynamics and toxic polarization can result in distorted and overly pessimistic views of the “other side.” Distorted views contribute to the toxicity of our divides — leading to more pessimistic views of each other and so on… 

Learn more: Read our piece “Through a distorted lens: How perceptions of the ‘other side’ drive toxic division.”

Myth #3: “Reducing polarization requires people to compromise with extremists.”

Some people think that depolarization and bridge-building work are about valuing “unity” and “getting along” above all else — putting “peace” over “justice,” or that we and others in this space just want everyone to “meet in the middle,” no matter how unreasonable one group’s political position may be.

But that’s not true. We are encouraging an examination of a) how we view our political opponents and b) how we engage with them. As stated, many of us are just plain wrong about what the “other side” believes and what motivates them; this can lead to inaccurate ideas of what compromise with “them” will look like. 

Also, in disagreement, there’s more room for compromise than people see at first — there’s much more common ground than people tend to expect. It’s often possible to arrive at creative compromises that make many people happy (or at least less unhappy). 

Learn more: Read our piece “You want us to compromise with extremists?”

Myth #4: “We need our animosity to defeat the ‘bad guys’”

Many think the work of reducing toxic polarization is at odds with political activism. The thinking goes, “We need to be polarized because our political opponents are so bad.” Or: “We need our animosity to defeat the bad guys.” 

Those instincts make a lot of sense. When we see harm being done by our political opponents on various political and cultural issues, we become understandably angry. 

But the problem isn’t political passion or anger; it’s contempt. When we engage in contemptuous, insulting, and non-compromising ways with our opponents, they’re more likely to do the same to us. Through our dark views of our opponents, we help drive the vicious cycle of conflict. 

For these reasons, depolarizing approaches can be powerful tools of political activism. One can be politically passionate and active while taking depolarizing approaches that minimize pushback to one’s cause and do more to help persuade others. 

Learn more: Read our piece “True or False? Political passion is at odds with depolarization?”

Help us spread the word

We must persuade more Americans of the importance of this work. One way you can help is to share this piece on social media. 

Let’s spread the word about the true goals and nature of this work, so we can help apply pressure on the more influential people among us — journalists, pundits, educators, leaders — to join the movement for a healthier, less toxic society. 

Thank you!

Want to stay in the loop on endeavors to reduce toxic divides? Sign up for our newsletter.