The Other Side is not Dumb: Bridging The Divide in America's Diverse Society

As diverse as The United States is, it is very much divided. This separation is apparent in multiple aspects of society. This is why it is important to bridge the gap for societal advancement. “Why America Is Self-Segregating” by Danah Boyd, “The Other Side Is Not Dumb” by Sean Blanda, “Why Rural America Voted for Trump” by Robert Leonard, and “A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” by Joseph E. Stiglitz are four articles that approach specific aspects that are resulting in the distance between people, wherein which they break down the rudimentary need of empathy to rope people together in solving these concerns. Under their claims, I will make a summary of these articles to expand on the importance of empathy, as well as stating the conflicting justification as to why that may never work.

“Why America Is Self-Segregating” - Emphasizing the Importance of Diversity 

“Why America Is Self-Segregating” by Danah Boyd explains what is happening in modern America and why the tension is so high between races, cultures, and political parties. She mentions four key points that have contributed to this self-segregation; technology, privatization of the military, college life, and the difficulty of diversity. Boyd races back at the unraveling historical institutions through which the Americans achieved. These institutions are the Higher Education and the US military. Technology is also an industry that comprises the unity of America. Although many tech entrepreneurs thought that the internet itself could help unify people, in reality, it and other technologies tend to magnify divisions and lead to polarization. Democracy requires diversity, and two previously functioning tools of diversification and bond-making are no longer doing their jobs. This is why Boyd examines the U.S. military and campus housing at certain colleges and universities to illustrate how these environments have become opportunities for self-segregation instead of a chance to foster tolerance. Since the United States has remained diverse but a segregated country, it has shaped the Americans politics as they have been grappling with divergent opinions and view, experience and political ideologies function as a country. Most institutions in the United States force individuals to encounter differences that do not produce results and tolerance in healthy resolution hence oppression and enslaving of people by others based on difference.

Boyd argues that residential life in universities is often student therapy as students have complained about their roommates. Therefore learning how to negotiate diversity and conflicts just like in the military is tremendously useful in social fabric sewing. Danah says that the US higher education has historically offered a social network diversification with the belief of increasing job prospects. However, I would like to argue that working and encountering diverse experiences and perspectives is a tough task, emotionally exhausting and uncomfortable. In response to this, it is apparent that much of the differences are due to differences in races. In terms of the US military, I suggest they wage more fights against prejudice. In addition to that, the morale of these soldiers should be put to question and be raised so that there is trust among the soldiers as well as comfort for them to receive and give protection for the rest of the unit. Boyd did a good job of raising the concerns for this segregation and stating some settlements for them, as well as pointing out the difficulties of keeping diversity. It all falls back to the fact that “Most people aren’t looking to self-segregate, but they do it anyway”. Again, Boyd does a good job in this article by not dismissing the fact that her plausible plan has ulterior factors that hinder it. It can be argued that as society develops, the separation of people increases. People attract and interact with those most similar to them and with technology, it allows us to choose and filter what we want. Much of my stance is sided with this rhetoric and Boyd does a great job throughout the essay with making a case and raising the extensive requirements to possibly resolve it and why that also may not be possible.

'The Other Side Is Not Dumb” - the Current State of American Youth

Sean Blanda’s, “The Other Side Is Not Dumb”, uses cultural examples concerning the younger American generation involving the media’s influence and peer pressure vs the facts and proof involved to form a personal opinion. The author emphasizes how the effects of pressure from our surroundings, such as friends, media, and much more, adjust our view of political and social subjects. He includes multiple cases where personal ignorance can hinder your learning and interaction with others. If a continued negative outlook on people who disagree with you persists, you will never be able to progress yourself through curiosity and not be able to have conversations with people of other communities. Blanda expands on how other people’s way of thinking may not be wrong. He advises the reader to evaluate themselves and carry out a determination of their views on subjects that are controversial. It is trying by not having the ability to have or see an alternative point of view. He then logically states that what is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, where everyone shares their view of the world. He aims to legitimize this notion as an ethical part of the public.

Every point in Sean Blanda’s article directly gets across his message, that we and our friends, or people who believe as we do, can sometimes be in the wrong, and that the other side is not dumb, we are just bigots in the loosest term. Everyone has their specific reasons for believing the way they do, just the same as us. He argues that individuals should be themselves and should think for themselves. Seek access to the opposing views and “Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead, try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it”. Just as Boyd, Blanda sees current social media behavior is not productive, and egotistic at the cost of engagement and if we want to consider online participation productive, we need to move past this. It is without a doubt that our friends can blindside us and with time we tend to believe that we are not different from them. In consideration of online discourse productivity and the behavior of social media, Blanda helps us understand that the other side is just as educated and informed as us. Blanda creates awareness to the reader that, if he/she finds himself/ herself in a discussion involving disagreements, he should not try to convince or win or to mock your peers to score but instead you should try to lose. This is where I agree with a lot. Boyd took the same approach and the succeeding articles also take this approach. Blanda takes further than before sharing a link on social media about current events, one should ask herself/himself the reason as to why he/ she wants to do it. He takes it as far as reigniting our emotions to consider how the other side feels. The use of logic and reasoning is beneficial in considering how the other side feels and I can term this article to address a current issue that happens in all social forms of social media.

“Why Rural America Voted for Trump” - Opposing Political Views Explained

“Why Rural America Voted for Trump” by Robert Leonard explains why the rural regions of America are actively supporting the Republican political party as they feel they can relate to the party. The popularity of Trump is mainly attributed to the economic anxiety that many of them have, and due to many of Trump’s promises to alleviate that. Poor economy leads to unemployment for rural Americans, and therefore they feel that Trump is the only person who concentrates on the rural regions of America and not the urban areas only. Americans from the rural area have been brought up since childhood to believe that they relate more with the Republicans. Leonard states that he is a Democrat. However, the curiosity of understanding his neighbors (Republicans) was done in 2015 where he listened to J.C. Watts was able to rationalize their beliefs. Rural Americans believe that liberals are responsible for creating rules and regulations that are unnecessary and thus crippling the economy. He stated some examples as to why Trump receives so much support. One includes the fact that Trump promised to fight for the employment status of those in rural areas.

Compared to the previous two articles that ranged from social media and the military, Leonard focused on the two prevalent subjects that divide the country, the Democratic and Republic Party. While there are many other parties, such as the Libertarian Party, the Green party and much more, the chances for them to be elected in respected political figures are slim, and that raises issues. Leonard champions J.C Watts speaking on movie theater shooting for him to register the other side. Just like Blanda, Leonard acknowledges that the other side is indeed not unintelligent, but that “We live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles”. It dives more into the narrative of our bigotry. The need to feel correct and being purposefully oblivious to things that do affect us. Being an onlooker to other issues and not conceding to comparing struggles - which only makes matters worse.

“A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” - a Series About Inequality

“A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, demonstrates how and why our present economy and government is a mess and how they have increased inequality, including widening the opportunity gap. He emphasizes the divide between society’s wealthy one percent and the other 99 percent. Where he says is exemplified during tax season. Mainly depending on statistics and facts to prove the regression of the United States tax system that works against the middle and lower class, in favor of the rich. Stiglitz mainly draws to the fact that there are many loopholes within the tax system that enable many benefits for the one percent. Triggering those below to feel preferential that is towards those of the upper class, especially when that is not necessary. Consequential effects concerning how to move forward on this subject will be hard if much hope is lost for those who are not part of the 99 percent. Stiglitz suggests the need for solidarity between all classes as well as government acknowledgment and involvement will create possible equity for all.

The key thing is that the benefit of wealth needs to be spread around more. Tax policies today encourage the concentration of capital wealth and property, generating, on one hand, a huge governmental bureaucracy to regulate centralized economic activity, and on the other hand, an ever-expanding number of economically dependent people requiring another huge government bureaucracy to administer to their needs (the other 99 percent). The economic, social, and legal injustices of our society are fostered by tax policies that enable the rich to become richer, while the majority of the working people, the elderly, small businessmen, family farmers, and the poor pay the taxes. Bluntly put that “ the very rich don’t pay their fair share” (Stiglitz xxx). However, what Stilglitz fails to do that the previous three articles did is the other side approach. For this particular article, the other side would be seeing it as nothing being wrong with having a few people control all the wealth. That we want as much wealth to be present in the economy as possible and that comes through not consuming it. The tax strategy for accumulating wealth is to overwhelm a few people with more money than they can spend. It works. But as Stiglitz sees it, we are generating capital too quickly to absorb it. I agree with Stiglitz's claims, but I wish he approached why this system is in place. Since his regard in dealing with this is to understand all sides, but he did not do very much himself when talking about the alternate side. Fundamentally, the goal is to know how America can be economically progressive and equitable.

Conclusion

Every article is linked through wanting to bridge the gap through the empathy of one another’s struggle and opinions. I agree with that being the bare minimum needed to be able to close this bridge. As people come together from different backgrounds, understanding how societies are based on fundamental patterns of culture becomes essential at all levels of human interaction. A Ted Talk with Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, who breaks down this communal divide through the constructed tribalistic views society has been set for people, explains this separation. I believe the underlying necessity to flourish is through intercultural understanding and communication. What needs to be done is to recognize the fact that there are differences between you and the other. This is important because much of our opinions are due to our culture and it is important to not base judgment before knowing the person. Tribalism allowed us to create large societies and to come together to compete with others. That brought us out of small groups, but it means that we have eternal conflict. In another word, the nature behind conflicts between the left and right now is simply tribal behaviors in modern society. Throughout our history, from generation to generation, both parties found some ways to grow up and breakthrough gridlock to move the country forward. Each generation of Americans and their representatives need to do this. Each generation does its best and passes it on. Now it is our turn, to elect candidates who will not only compromise effectively but will also find common ground and pass legislation that embodies the values of both parties and the American people. And we citizens are a part of this. We see that we already have inside ourselves the skills to listen, to understand others and their values, to hear and be heard, and sometimes to find common ground. We can join the people of our generation who are finding ways to bridge the gaps between parties and to create laws and policies that will move our nation forward. We'll have missteps and even failures, but we'll learn from them and carry on.

The rapid boom of technology has everyone interconnected. This technology also makes it all too easy to commit or over-commit to our work and personal lives. Specifically, things like social media are replacing what little time we have that could perhaps be spent in a more meaningful way. It seems that there is this need to always be “connected” with everyone and everything around us.

Though empathy seems like a good resolution to divide America, I objection to this plan since I do not think that more empathy could mitigate the gap in American society. We are rooted in communities and 'cliques'. This reason alone is dividing ourselves within ourselves. Nowadays divided America is simply an outcome of racial gaps from its establishment. Culture is always an unbridgeable gap among tribes though they have made laws and invented political correctness to ban discriminating against any group. However, there is always an absolute strong tribe, and it is so powerful and strong that even all other tribes united together are unable to make themselves an equal position with the largest one. This is just the nature of the nation, and I suppose that no solution could productively work.

Empathy is a basic attribute needed to be able to communicate with one another. However, this also cannot be fully achieved when there is tribalism built within ourselves that hinder full integration and understanding to pursue changes. “Why America Is Self-Segregating” by Danah Boyd, “The Other Side Is Not Dumb” by Sean Blanda, “Why Rural America Voted for Trump” by Robert Leonard, and “A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” by Joseph E. Stiglitz all want togetherness for their subjects to be solved. Bridging the gap is significant for progression, something that is continuously being advocated for in The United States, and as diverse as the country is, solidarity from others pushes more of a flourishing state.