So-called “affective polarization” (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015)—deep antagonism between outgroup members—is a urgent up to date challenge. Affectively polarized people are sometimes incapable of cooperating, partaking in minimally constructive or respectful methods, in addition to studying from and responding appropriately to at least one one other’s variations (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2018). Towards this backdrop, politicians on each side of the aisle have referred to as for locating frequent floor. In his inaugural speech, President Biden referred to as for Individuals to “put away the tough rhetoric. To decrease the temperature. To see one another once more. To pay attention to one another once more.” “To make progress,” Biden claimed, “we should cease treating our opponents as our enemy. We aren’t enemies. We’re Individuals.” Even notoriously divisive former President Trump’s first State of the Union Handle emphasised the significance of discovering commonalities throughout political variations: “Tonight, I name upon all of us to put aside our variations, to hunt out frequent floor, and to summon the unity we have to ship for the folks.” Philosophers have additionally begun to contemplate the significance of discovering frequent floor. Hannon (2020), for example, claims that “we should change our primary attitudes in direction of one another in an effort to discover the frequent floor on which collective flourishing relies upon” (597-598). Equally, Madva (2020) cites the significance of adopting a “common-ground mindset” when interacting with outgroup members as a way of counteracting tendencies to negatively fixate on group-related variations. And elsewhere I’ve argued that empathy is very well-suited to the duty of serving to us discover frequent floor throughout polarized divides (Read, 2021).
But, regardless of its potential advantages in a variety of instances, efforts to seek out frequent floor will not be fully innocuous, and people who attempt to discover frequent floor throughout polarized divides could incur severe dangers. These embrace the dangers of: (1) masking necessary variations between oneself and a polarized opponent, thereby inhibiting efforts to reply appropriately to such variations; (2) submitting oneself to undue (bodily, cognitive, and emotional) harms; and (3) exacerbating intergroup hostility and antagonism when discovering frequent floor throughout one group divide negatively highlights variations throughout one other. Insofar as these dangers are actual, they supply robust pro-tanto causes in opposition to discovering frequent floor throughout polarized divides.
Take into account first (1) the chance of masking necessary variations between oneself and a polarized opponent. In some instances, highlighting commonalities could obscure necessary variations and numerous unjust disparities that accompany these. An instance of that is when coalition constructing throughout racial divides for the sake of addressing some frequent aim obscures necessary injustices related to the racial variations amongst members of the group and thereby inhibits the group’s responsiveness to these injustices. In reality, ongoing work within the cognitive sciences means that overemphasizing a typical identification between marginalized and dominantly located group members can contribute to decreased motivation to advertise social change, particularly on the a part of the marginalized, however not in instances the place subgroup identities are additionally preserved (Dovidio, et al., 2016; Glasford & Dovidio, 2011). Given the chance of obscuring necessary variations between group members, it could due to this fact be essential to seek out frequent floor that promotes bonds between outgroups whereas on the identical time preserving necessary subgroup identities—for example, by emphasizing a typical nationwide identification that’s partly constituted by a shared valuing of range and multiculturalism.
Take into account subsequent (2) the chance of submitting oneself to undue (bodily, cognitive, and emotional) harms. Merely put, some instances involving sure polarized opponents could also be too harmful to warrant efforts to seek out frequent floor. For instance, it could be too bodily and emotionally unsafe and taxing for a lot of (particularly marginalized group members) to method the members of sure different teams—e.g., violent hate teams—with the intention of discovering frequent floor with them. In reality, in some instances, marginalized group members’ efforts to seek out frequent floor with a dominantly located particular person could even devolve into so-called epistemic exploitation—characterised by “unrecognized, uncompensated, emotionally taxing, coerced epistemic labor” on the a part of minority-group members (Berenstain, 2016: 569)—after they change into tasked with educating their dominantly located counterpart concerning their oppression.
Take into account lastly (3) the chance of exacerbating intergroup hostility and antagonism when discovering frequent floor throughout one group divide negatively highlights variations throughout one other. As Arendt (1970) poignantly notes, most of the robust feelings and attitudes that accompany group membership and partisanship, together with these related to solidarity, together with compassion, empathy, love, and so forth., undermine the prospects for constructive discourse between free and equal people—a key characteristic of any wholesome political group. More moderen findings counsel that this will occur with empathy specifically when elevated empathy for political ingroup members exacerbates affective polarization for political outgroup members (Simas, Clifford, & Kirkland, 2020). In some instances, newly discovered frequent floor with an opponent would possibly due to this fact come at the price of another group or outgroup member, as in instances the place two or extra opposed teams unite in opposition to some frequent (no less than perceived) enemy. Such instances of scapegoating—with which historical past is sadly rife—is not going to solely exacerbate the issue of curiosity but additionally create new (even perhaps greater) ones.
In fact, these dangers don’t negate the worth of discovering frequent floor altogether. In reality, discovering frequent floor of various sorts could play an important position in mitigating the harms brought on by poisonous relations between polarized opponents in quite a lot of alternative ways. For instance, discovering frequent floor that’s pertinent to the purpose of disagreement or battle could assist opponents attain a decision by uncovering factors of settlement or shared concern. And when frequent floor that’s instantly pertinent to the purpose of disagreement can’t be discovered, discovering frequent floor concerning one thing else—e.g., one other shared worth, concern, or expertise—that can be of sufficiently important private significance to each events could have optimistic penalties, together with selling cooperation towards different shared targets, in addition to serving to to forge and maintain morally important optimistic relationships (Gilligan, 1993; Pettit, 2015; Walker, 1989; Wong, 2009). In reality, efforts to seek out such frequent floor may even display a very strong type of care, in addition to respect within the type of “willingness to be taught” from the opposite—necessary elements of bell hooks’ (2018) ethic of affection. Equally, discovering frequent floor may also typically be required for appearing in ways in which keep away from inflicting additional harm to the connection with one’s opponent—essential for appearing on an ethical precept of lodging (Gutmann & Thompson, 1990; Wong, 1992).
There could even be some profit to discovering frequent floor in instances the place one continues to disagree with an opponent. For example, making the hassle to seek out frequent floor with an opponent would possibly put one in a greater place to vary their thoughts concerning the purpose of disagreement, or no less than to attraction to them as somebody who shares among the identical issues. One may also come to have a clearer sense of what’s necessary about one’s personal view, how one can current the view in methods which are extra convincing to a wider vary of individuals, which kinds of beliefs, practices, or values battle with one’s view and which don’t, and so forth.
All of this implies that efforts to seek out frequent floor advantage severe and cautious consideration—maybe far more so than beforehand thought. In any case, as I’ve instructed, there are robust pro-tanto causes for and in opposition to making this effort, causes that should be weighed fastidiously in opposition to each other on a case-by-case foundation. For example, it could be that in a single case talking up for what one believes to be proper, or refusing to accommodate sure practices, is extra necessary—i.e., gives a weightier pro-tanto purpose—than the varied items that discovering frequent floor with an opponent can yield, whereas in one other case the advantages of discovering frequent floor far outweigh the dangers.
Given the seriousness of each the potential advantages and dangers, efforts to find out whether or not, when, and how one can discover frequent floor are more likely to be properly well worth the bother. (For a extra detailed dialogue of those points, see: Learn (2022).)
Hannah Learn
Hannah Read is at present a postdoctoral fellow at Wake Forest. She accomplished her PhD in Philosophy at Duke, her MA in Philosophy at Tufts, and her BA in Philosophy and Literary Research on the New College.
