What role can beer play in bridging our political divides?

In a recent article detailing the advice that outgoing Members of Congress had for the new class, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said,

Find opportunities to reach across the aisle. When in doubt, beer is a great bridge to help span the partisan divide.

It should come as no surprise that DeFazio is the founder of the bipartisan House Small Brewers Caucus (founded 2007), which focuses on opportunities for lawmakers to learn about the brewing industry. With more than 200 members, the ‘Beer Caucus’ is an example of how legislators on Capitol Hill are coming together to focus on a joint issue. As of 2017, the Beer Caucus was the largest bipartisan caucus on Capitol Hill.

But that’s not all: For the last several years Anheuser-Busch has hosted a Brew Across America Congressional Brewing Competition where pairs of lawmakers work with breweries across the country to produce a beer. The 2021 competition added an additional stipulation, the pairs had to be bipartisan. The Brew Across America Competition was initially launched in 2017 as part of Anheuser-Busch’s ‘Brew Democracy’ Initiative, which “highlights the nonpartisan nature of beer and its ability to strengthen our democracy by fostering dialogue and finding common ground.”

For his bipartisan brew, Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D) worked with Rep. Fred Upton (R), and was quick to note in an NPR interview the similarities between drafting legislation on Capitol Hill and brewing beer. 

Once you realize what ingredients go into it, you say ‘that's weird.’ What starts at the beginning doesn’t necessarily come out the same at the end but you always hope for the best.”

Cárdenas and Upton ultimately ended up winning the 2021 Congressional Brewing Competition. 

Working with members of the other party is for more than Members of Congress: it impacts every level of our daily lives. Our friends, our families, our neighbors, and our classmates come with their own unique background and experiences which shape their worldviews. It is only through working together that our shared problem solving can help us address our common problems. 

But what role can beer and brewing play in bridging our political divides outside of Capitol Hill? 

Beer has been a cornerstone of the human experience for thousands of years. There is a reason in ancient times there was a Mesopotamian Goddess of Beer and Brewing (Ninkasi, which you may recognize now from Ninkasi Brewing in Eugene, OR). 

Even today, beer is known as a ‘Drink of the People.’ You can see it woven in throughout our culture (Look at ‘Duff Beer’ in the Simpsons or ‘Alamo Beer’ in King of the Hill). Drinking a beer at a sporting event is seen as an American pastime. According to Time Magazine,

Whether we’re meeting over cups at a sports stadium, bottles at a local watering hole or glasses in an up-and-coming craft brewery, getting together to drink beer has a long-standing role in connecting cultures and building communities.

Red states drink beer and blue states drink beer. Hipsters drink beer and farmers drink beer. 

But what if I told you beer can actually lower partisan animosity?

The Strengthening Democracy Challenge brought together academics, practitioners, and industry experts to test specific online interventions to reduce anti-democratic attitudes, support for partisan violence, and/or partisan animosity.

One of the interventions tested was watching. a 2017 Heineken Ad, which showed partisans of conflicting views bonding together over a shared activity (in this case, building a bar). According to the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, of the 25 interventions tested among 32,000 Americans, this ad proved to be the most successful of any tested at reducing partisan animosity. 

One of my most memorable experiences of bipartisan discussion happened with one of my friends over beers. I asked, “Another time, can you tell me a bit more about why you believe what you do on guns? It isn’t an area I’m super knowledgable in and I know it’s one of your main issues.”

“I can do it right now!!” They immediately replied. We ended up staying up for another 4 hours discussing gun control and the right to bear arms, and determining if there was a bipartisan solution to the gun issue. Do we agree on everything when it comes to guns? Heck no! Am I far more knowledgable and articulate around the issue of guns in America? Heck yes!

So what role can beer and breweries play in helping to bridge our political divides?

Breweries are one of the places in our society where people of all political persuasions gather together. As society becomes more polarized and people self-select where they live and visit, breweries can offer a space for people to meet and connect with people from across the aisle. 

Coffee shops have already been joining this movement. Pax & Beneficia in Irving, TX started a Coffee & Discourse Initiative that “Anyone who brings a person with an opposing viewpoint to their Irving coffee shop will get buy one, get one free coffee.” In 2017, Starbucks worked with Boston-based startup Hi From the Other Side, to offer free cups of coffee to people who came together to talk about political differences over a cup of coffee. Bipartisan Cafe in Portland, is dedicated to the idea of “making sure that people are working together and getting along, even when they don’t necessarily get along.” 

At a national level, Boston Beer Co., which includes Samuel Adams, Angel City Brewery, Coney Island Brewery, Dogfish Head Miami, Truly Hard Seltzer, Twisted Tea and Angry Orchard hard cider, was the first corporate funder of Meeting of America, demonstrating interest within the beer and brewing industry in this type of work. The 2022 Meeting of America brought together Kentuckians with widely different beliefs and backgrounds to meet together, listen, and co-create a stronger future together. Large beer brands have transpartisan audiences and name recognition across multiple states and regions. Not only is it powerful for them to step into this type of work, but it is also good business. 

But you don’t have to be a large national brand to make a difference in bridging divides in your local community. 

Here are some potential ways the breweries and the beer industry can play a role in helping to bridge our political divides.

1. Host your own Discourse Over Beer event: Similar to how coffee shops are offering initiatives to bring people together, there may be an avenue for breweries to play a role. If you want to evolve beyond one-on-one conversations, perhaps using a conversation guide from Living Room Conversations is a good option (they have guides on over 150+ different topics, from belonging to the environment to political polarization). Every year hundreds of organizations around the United States participate in National Week of Conversation, an initiative to bring Americans together across lines of difference, which is a great entry point to participate in a national campaign while doing an event in your local community.

2. Consider a Collaboration Brew: Collab Brews require resources, there is no doubt about that, especially if it isn’t based within your local community. However, if you have the resources, are there opportunities to work with a brewery with a very different background than your own and to learn from and amplify those stories collaboratively? 

3. Learn from National Programs: At a national level, the US Chamber of Commerce hosted a Common Grounds Series, which convened ‘one Republican leader and one Democratic leader over a cup of coffee to explore important issues or challenges facing the business community and the nation.’ Are there opportunities for either a national series (via the Brewers Association) to do something similar, or are there opportunities to bring together local representatives and council members for a bipartisan way to educate, learn from, and meet their constituents?

What other ideas do you have? Add them in the comments. 

Listening is Patriotism at its Finest

When our Founding Fathers gathered together for the Constitutional Convention to write our founding documents, they didn’t all agree. They fought. They argued. They debated…and they listened. After months of discussing, debating, and working together, they created something beautiful, something bigger than themselves. They created a system that still stands more than 230 years later.  

No one gets to have a monopoly on patriotism. 

Patriotism isn’t just about a mark on your ballot or putting up a flag in your yard. It isn’t about fiery political speeches or pushing out those that vote differently than you did. Patriotism is about working together on behalf of the American people, not in spite of our differences but because of them. It is about creating opportunities for everyday Americans to talk about what impacts them: their concerns in their neighborhood, at their kid’s schools, their hopes and dreams for a better future for themselves and their families. It’s about taking that passion, those debates, and arguments, and really listening. That is patriotism. 

Our democracy and the constitution it is based on would not exist if our Founding Fathers didn’t take the time to listen and learn from those they disagreed with. Our Founding Fathers understood that a democracy called for a diversity of opinions, of Representatives that didn’t all agree with each other and instead worked for the betterment of the people they represented. It isn’t just a diversity of opinions that is causing polarization in our society, it is a lack of listening. 

87% of Americans are sick and tired of how divided we are, of turning on the TV and seeing the other half of the country as our enemy. Americans are sick and tired of letting politicians, cable news, and social media divide us against each other. Americans are sick and tired of watching a government that they feel is more invested in fighting amongst itself than in problem-solving, and watching that fighting and anger trickle down into their neighborhoods and family dinner tables.  

At this time when it can feel like our democracy is failing and our friendships are fracturing we are faced with a crisis of patriotism. But the answer isn't about leaning more into our ideological bubbles, of cutting those off with whom we disagree. It is about listening. Surrounding yourselves with people from different perspectives and backgrounds and talking together and listening together can and does make a difference. It’s about finding moments of unity together, and talking about what it really means to have a society with liberty and justice for all. It’s about coming together as citizens and just being together. Listening is patriotism at its finest. 

Short, simple interventions can reduce partisan animosity (yay!) … so, what comes next? Here are 90 ideas.

When it comes to reducing Americans’ partisan animosity, anti-democratic attitudes, and tolerance for political violence, what types of interventions work best? And, (how) can the best-performing interventions be scaled and offered to millions of Americans?

These were the burning questions that the Strengthening Democracy Challenge team set out to answer when they launched their innovative, tournament-style social science study more than two years ago. 

Having corralled the combined energies of a multi-campus research team, an expert advisory board, more than 400 intervention submitters, and more than 32,000 Americans who tested the interventions, the Challenge team has now shared its findings via a draft paper, a recent virtual convening, and extensive media coverage.  

On September 29, more than 400 bridge-building practitioners, social media company employees, academics, philanthropic funders, and interested citizens convened virtually to explore the encouraging findings of the Strengthening Democracy Challenge. 

As the Challenge team shared during the opening plenary sessions (view recordings here), among 25 interventions selected for full testing, nearly all of them (23) delivered statistically meaningful reductions in participants’ partisan animosity, anti-democratic attitudes, and / or tolerance for political violence. 

Results were fairly similar across left-leaning and right-leaning study participants, and winning interventions showed variable, but generally promising, levels of “durability” i.e. having a longer-lasting impact on these attitudes. Best of all, the Challenge results indicate that a wide range of approaches can be successful. 

From the outset, the Challenge was designed to identify simple, impactful interventions that academics, practitioners, and platforms could scale up physically, virtually, or both. The September 29th convening took this applied focus even further, sending attendees into “themed” breakout groups and assigning the goal of brainstorming as many ways as possible to implement, scale, and measure real-world interventions based on Challenge insights.

Academics, bridge building practitioners, social media platforms, and funders now have a diverse “tasting menu” of ideas and innovations to consider scaling, amplifying, and funding in order to reach more Americans more quickly -- whether in virtual or physical spaces. 

Scroll further for a roundup of many insightful ideas generated in the themed breakouts. Which ones might you, your lab, your team, or your organization decide to run with? 

Whatever the answer, be sure to learn about the Challenge grant program offering awards of up to $50,000 to teams that will implement, scale, and measure real-world interventions. Information sessions for researchers and practitioners take place on Mon, Oct 24, and grant applications are due Fri, Jan 13, 2023.

Below are detailed, bullet-point lists of ideas and suggestions generated across six breakout sessions of the “Bridging Divides & Strengthening Democracy” conference. The names of those who contributed ideas have been removed from this public-facing article, but are available to Challenge team members for potential future outreach. 

Challenge team members hope that the many ideas generated in the breakout sessions will inspire individuals and organizations to apply for the Challenge grant program, to implement, scale, and measure interventions with attributes drawn from Challenge winners and / or the more extensive idea lists here.

Correct Inaccurate Partisan Stereotypes

In this breakout, attendees brainstormed interventions focused on correcting participants' misperceptions of their rival partisans. Ideas generated included:

• Pair individual Democrats and Republicans to be "buddies" holding each other accountable to not vote for or support representatives of their own party that are violating democratic norms.

• Help members of both parties to see that individuals on the "other side" have taken major steps to try to protect democracy; this would emphasize our shared stake in democracy, and partisans on opposite sides of the aisle wouldn't seem so ill-intended.

• Name misperceptions and misinformation; expose folks to the manipulation that has occured; gamify this if possible.

• Popularize / gamify something that would teach a better understanding of human nature that leads to misperceptions of rivals - confirmation bias, conformity bias, groupthink, etc. i.e. a Human 101 "Owner's" manual.

• Launch a game show about identifying metaperceptions; goes along with teaching / learning human nature.

• Help people become more aware of the complexity of their motivations and to make intentional choices based on their motivations.

• Use reality TV format(s) to support democracy and depolarize.

• Correct meta misperceptions prior to peacebuilding work; determine whether this collapses tension / resistance before engaging across divides.

• Teach listening as a subject in school; make it a social value, elevate its coolness.

• Take existing studies / surveys on misperceptions and convert them into interventions.

• Bring people together across political divides to “achieve superordinate goals,” i.e. do a community service project -- either their own community if it's in person or a digital project if a virtual group.

• Study the effects of correcting misperceptions on elected officials instead of the general public.

• Study the effects of correcting misperceptions on independents and non-voters instead of self-identified Democrats and Republicans.

• Use media / social media / journalism to depolarize; support more direct work depolarizing journalists, teaching concepts of cognitive bias.

• Identify domains in which having accurate perceptions is genuinely important; create situations in which people have an incentive to be accurate.

• Create “social contagion” for positive behavior; i.e. build a civic "church" with excitement that spreads.

• Apply some sort of humility exercise before starting conversations, to help people go into conversations with a deep sense of our shared limited perceptions. (The thing most people have in common is ignorance. We should acknowledge that. We tend to go into complex policy conversations acting like we have a deep understanding, which the vast majority of us do not.)

• Teach skills and human understanding through helping people to be more individually self-actualized; people are more drawn to programs that help them become more fully human and are more about them individually than are about "saving democracy."

• Encourage people to have more complex conversations with people on “their own side" to practice communicating complexity of experiences and views. This will help to correct misperceptions in in-vivo conversations across partisan divides. (By observing the significant difference of opinion on BOTH your own side and the other side, you recognize that opinion is a spectrum and that there are many more cross-cutting opinions across the political divide that one sees in this them v us environment.)

• Focus not only on commonality, but also on points where there are legitimate, substantive points of disagreement (elaboration: really zero in on matters to talk about; where is the crux of the disagreement and what really produces important results/movement -- rather than just talking about everything. Have more focus.)

• Create better incentives to invite people into any or all of the interventions described above.

Appeal to Common Identities

In this breakout, attendees brainstormed interventions that show how identifying commonalities between rival partisans can improve their perceptions of one another. Ideas generated included:

• Show people aspects of conversations like this where people are getting along and realizing that they have more common ground than before.

• Develop something that shows the silent majority's perspective, i.e. testimonials of people sharing their stories about how fed up they are of hearing only the extremes.

• Develop some sort of app or program that first finds things that people have in common and then moves on to more difficult questions where the people may not agree.

• A large group of people in the "middle" aren't represented. Presenting this information to people at the extreme ends may be beneficial to show the sheer scale of our differences.

• Use icebreakers, such as “describe your perfect day” first to find connections and have people let their guards down before engaging across differences.

• Have each side in a pair of out-partisans explain how they feel about democracy and polarization.

• Give / show people a vicarious experience of working together to solve a problem or task, and show the creativity that can happen when people work together across differences.

• Ask questions and listen for the values underlying these issues they have. Ask them to remember a time when those values were formed, and dig deeper rather than just listening, to figure out the “why” and “how” of their values.

• Host workshops where misinformation shows how people may be mistaken. Then have participants write an identity paragraph to make the point that when you interact with any type of information, it helps form the identities that define you.

• People will struggle to find commonality in information sources; therefore, a best practice is to start with emotions rather than facts.

• With kids, rather than showing or explaining bipartisanship, show them how they feel about each other and the realities of the democratic world.

• Welcoming America is currently providing grants for communities on the ground (especially in NC and GA) to test out contact theory between immigrants and US born folks. We're supporting programs that bring people together to build/create/do things together. Through that engagement, we're seeing movement in perceptions.

• “Being a good neighbor” is a common value we have with our neighbors. HOA groups, where people already have this common value, may be helpful to do an intervention within this space. You have to come together, and there is already common ground. Some sort of workshop within this arena may be beneficial.

• Can religious interventions help polarization issues, by using common language like "children of God?"

• Appealing to people around their “caretaker of the future” roles (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving) - show clips of people from different backgrounds talking about common visions of a healthy future for future generations.

• Reveal common identities first, then discuss differences, or vice versa; which is the most effective? Most Americans are actually somewhere in the middle. People identify with their moral values, their jobs, their household identity. Is our political identity really the most important thing to identify as? Use this as a type of intervention.

• Identifying common roles we play is impactful. People don't have their guard up as much when they relate to each other in this way. In dialogue events, it can be hard to accomplish this because people are already set in their ways and it's usually more extremists that attend events like this.

Role Model Positive Contact Between Partisans

In this breakout, attendees brainstormed interventions that show or facilitate positive encounters between partisans. Ideas generated included:

• Use an advertising approach, possibly through commercial and social media; show positive affirmations.

• Use a problem-solving model, relating what they do in common life.

• Match people in small, private conversations.

• Help people to manage their emotions and adopt a constructive frame of mind going into virtual conversations.

• Use documentary film as a listening tool.

• Create a video showing “lived experience” of different subjects, to humanize and create empathy.

• Leverage the metaphor of “yielding” in safe driving, and how we must also yield to one another in conversation, giving way for other ideas to emerge.

• Orchestrate interactive activities around museum exhibits that show positive contact between partisans.

• Find ways to create the actual feeling of common ground among people whose opinions or positions seem irreconcilable.

Leverage Cues from Political Leaders

In this breakout, attendees brainstormed interventions that use messages from political leaders to improve Americans’ democratic attitudes and reduce animosity. Ideas generated included:

• Formally train elected officials and staffers on bipartisanship

• Show more videos of Republican and Democrat leaders affirming the democratic process, peaceful transition of power, etc (like the Utah governors’ video)

• Show videos of Republican and Democrat leaders supporting bipartisan policy changes / actions.

• Create a “channel” where political leaders can go to see and access the best examples and “exemplars” of bipartisanship (e.g. Van Jones)

• Create and leverage a dataset of leaders to work with in bipartisan fashion, to achieve policy outcomes.

• Create a platform as a “safe space” for political leaders to congregate and to forge cross-partisan alliances.

• Recreate and strengthen the norms / expectations that force people to talk to each other; set the norm for engagement; show a feel-good story of showing people that came together despite disagreeing (with room at the table within power structures even for those who lost an election)

• Create a pledge for people running for office that secures their pro-democracy commitments; offer election fund “collateral” and if they don't honor those commitments, they lose the collateral.

• Have party leaders visibly praise other party leaders for talking positively about the outgroup; create a culture of respect for the opposing party; make an effort to change others' perceptions about the group.

• Have political leaders / activists make the argument for how and why democracy is helpful; how can politicians demonstrate through their messaging that democracy is useful for the everyday American?

• Influence media and candidates to speak to issues voters actually care about (instead of buying into divisive, partisan rhetoric) during election campaigns. E.g. Center for the Future of Arizona does research on issues likely Arizona voters are concerned about ahead of the 2020 election, and works alongside media and candidates to use this data to inform questions asked during debates and messaging on the campaign trail.

• Designate a “Queen Elizabeth” figure; people liked that there was someone who symbolically held the best interests of the country in mind; a way of ensuring a peaceful transfer of power; a monarch-type figure in the democracy.

Highlight the Threat of Democratic Collapse

In this breakout, attendees brainstormed interventions that encourage partisans to consider the violence and disorder that can result when democracy collapses. Ideas generated included:

• Run a series of videos (ads) similar to health (anti-smoking) campaigns. Demonstrate good behaviors to counteract bad behaviors. Ask for action.

• Create a game that engages people to guess where anti-democratic practices have happened. Seems reasonable but could have negative effects.

• Know your audience; make sure messages are properly crafted. Find a frame of reference that is different; show the fragility of democracy. Compelling vision of what it can be vs. the fear of losing what we have.

• Make people think about the inconvenience, ramifications of democratic or societal collapses.

• Appeal to patriotism to work across the divide. Less about tearing down the opponent, more about preserving what we have together.

• Leverage scholars of government systems to speak at high school government classes, to really explain what the differences are between political systems. People are too used to democracy and may not really understand how it differs from other options.

• Leverage evangelical pastors in conservative communities, asking faith leaders to step up. Ask how congregants feel and how the church is contributing to it. Use local research to support it.

• Focus more on local feelings rather than national. What is happening in your own community?

• People adjacent to the fringe can have a big influence; target messaging to them, so they can help influence the fringe.

• In terms of modifying the “threat of democratic collapse” video intervention, try these modifications:

  • Test and measure reactions to the video / footage to see what works best and what will limit backlash

  • Use "choreography" and placement of people, audio to put people into the story.

  • Adjust the video approach to lessen violent images. Less focus on fear.

  • Balance use of fear and possible gains. e.g. Electoral College reform is within reach.

Implications for Social Media Platforms

In this breakout, attendees discussed how the lessons from Strengthening Democracy Challenge might translate to modifications of social media platforms. Implications discussed and debated included:

• The desire for financial profit seems to drive polarization. This skews social media platforms and content towards division. It’s not so much about profit per se, but about maximizing profit through polarization.

• Algorithms are super important. Finding new ways to engage is key; length of videos can be a deterrent; students are willing to engage with longer content if it keeps their attention.

• How is it possible to get people to engage with prosocial content, when attention spans are so small now?

• Cognitive restructuring to respond to incentives may not last very long. Arousal drives attention. Fair bit of evidence from neuroscience lit (primate, etc) that arousal (positive or negative) drives attention.

• Another major issue to keep in mind - most people are not political and most people don't see much (or any) political content on social media. Where is the evidence for the idea that “polarization sells?”

• Several platforms are attempting to do more work on the positive side; who can have a conversation with the key people of these platforms that will advance the reach but also discuss democracy?

• How should prosocial interventions account for the fact that influencers are super viral?

• Any intervention / organization (positive or negative) has to be good at “selling things” in order to go viral; what are the algorithms doing to bring people together?

• How can we have more accurate perceptions with posts while still having engaging content?

• It is confirmation bias that sells rather than polarization narratives. Can confirmation bias be leveraged to more positively affirm, putting empathy in the algorithms?

• Bad things happen when conversations get too large or too public. As a group gets bigger, the chance that it contains people with extreme views gets bigger, and people with moderate views are often unwilling to talk publicly about politics for fear of getting attacked by people with more extreme views.

• The rapid competitive news cycle means that a lot of conventional journalism is either recycled Twitter or recycled press releases - so what happens on Twitter doesn't stay on Twitter. It's more about reshares than ranking. People will click uplifting stuff, but negative stuff gets the reshares - because it's a way of signaling identity or "warning people".

• Perceptions of extremity are not independent of algorithms. If extreme content does better as a business model due to algorithms (in part), then it makes sense that that perception would be reinforced by its visibility on platforms (not just social media, but also cable news)

• One thing I've personally been thinking about is the significance of theory of mind, i.e. what I think other people think of me. Social media seems important not because it gives people too much polarizing information per se, but because it is a major cue for everyday Americans to calibrate what “generalized others” think and say.

• Question: Does anyone know of studies that show whether arguing with people on social media works or not?

• Suggestion: Positive troll farm. interested in more understanding about whether people are overestimating their own side. Then we need to take the difference between our own and the other side's misperceptions.

• Suggestion: Blend depolarizing content and messaging with (highly popular, cross-partisan) animal rescue videos

• Suggestion: Focus less on monetizing social media, and more on creating a compelling app or game.

• Suggestion: Maximize engagement with prosocial content via incentives. Simultaneously, push algorithm change via legislation.

• Suggestion: Forge a collaboration or working group between people who are responsible for monetizing social media and those who want to democratize it. embrace this monetary incentive. working with the system we have and finding ways to make it work. health, wealth, and relationships sell. Look at Clubhouse, which exploded because of organic demand, when people were lonely during the pandemic.

• Suggestion: Putting together ideas folks shared in this breakout room and the last, here's a pathway: a) Draw from the successful challenge interventions and other existing, successful practitioner work, b) Engage in education & partnership with successful social media influencers and social media professionals, particularly those who are successfully monetizing. Then c) Invest in partnering with existing creators to publish pro-democracy content synergistically with their existing content.

Why Voting Matters

When I was a teacher, I was often assigned the students who were considered “difficult”. Usually, they were from homes diametrically opposed to my white suburban upbringing. These students often came from backgrounds and personal experiences that I could not even fathom living through as an adult. Homelessness. Poverty. Hunger. Violence. You name it, each student was different; yet, many shared a common theme. They were angry, frustrated, and often, let down by adults who never listened You see, most of them spent hours in administrative offices being talked to, rather than heard. They would go through court systems and social workers who stopped looking at them like a person and ticked them off as yet another statistic. Each had been told in one way or another that they just didn’t fit into society’s expectations. And yet, they were often some of my favorite students to this day.

I am not going to lie, teaching is one of the hardest professions a person can do. And these students often tested my limits of patience and perseverance. But what I had found is that if I stopped talking and being the person who lead the conversation, if I gave them a safe space to be themselves, even in anger, I could reach them a lot easier. And often, if I was willing to show vulnerability, ask questions to gain understanding, or even sit quietly while the student would scream out the anger, I would find a student who over time transformed from an angry, withdrawn kid into a talkative, eager student. When we give people safe spaces to speak, withholding judgement in order to probe into the heart of what the issue is about, we are often surprised to find out we aren’t so different after all.

I remember a student, who would sit and talk with me before school about basketball. He loved the Cavs and I was a former coach and player who just loved Kevin Love. He was just happy that someone cared about his opinion, even though neither of us were ever contacted by the Cavs to coach. And in return, I got an attentive and more respectful student who started turning in his homework. At the end of the day, my students wanted to same things I wanted for myself: safety, comfort, acceptance, and the knowledge that no matter how bad things got, they would and could get better.

Today, we are living in a society where so many people feel angry, unheard, unvalued, and isolated. I see the same anger in friends, families, and strangers as I did in my students. The fear. The feeling that what is happening is beyond their control, and that they can no longer, with certainty, say everything will be alright. And while a single vote never seems like it matters, it does. It’s a ripple in the pond. It’s how we start to change currents and refocus our lives back to those fundamental needs: comfort, safety, and acceptance. And voting doesn’t mean that the work is done once ballots have been cast. It requires us to all sit at the table with people who are angry and give space. It requires us to work harder to find common ground, and to continue to advocate for ourselves, but even more so for the people of this country who have felt silenced and unheard for too long.

Written by: Kristin Tarase

2020: The Power of Communal Healing

As we near another divisive election in another year of division, we are seeing a pain even deeper than we have experienced before. A year of uncertainty, a year of sickness (in more ways than one), a year of fear, a year of sadness.It is simultaneously shocking and unsurprising.

Whether physical, emotional or mental, desperately or slightly, we are all suffering, all in need of healing. I’ve seen pundits write that while we may not all be in the same boat (and, in fact, many don’t even have an umbrella much less a lifejacket), we are all in the same collective storm. I see so many commenting that we cannot let the election divide us more - we cannot let this be reason to ignore the suffering, to not care. At the same time, it is also important to remember that many votes come from a place of suffering, a feeling of pain, a need for saving. 

My reform Jewish upbringing came with many traditions. These included quite literally standing at times with strangers (neighbors) while they were grieving and echoing prayers of healing with them as they held sick loved ones close to their hearts. And as we stood in the synagogue our rabbis asked us to “say a prayer for those who have no one to say one for them.” Spending our energy, our time, to blindly send prayers into the world without discrimination for the stranger in desperate need. Similarly, “thoughts and prayers” have taken over the digital wires via social media this year. A story of pain, trauma and loss goes viral or we see a friend post heartbreaking news, and we are quick to let them know, in our still busy and filled days, we are spending precious moments to send what might exist of our own healing powers. My own family has been on the receiving end of these thoughts, prayers, and outreaches of love many times over the last decade, and I can personally say, though they seem like just words in a time when words can’t bring back a lost one or single-handedly turn back time, it is magical what power they can contain. The feeling of endless circles of arms around you, literal and figurative, brings a level of peace that is hard to describe. Yet outside of these moments, outside of a holy space, how often are we ourselves feeding the brokenness and sickness? How often are we refusing to provide that level of unrestricted compassion necessary to help heal?

We have an election in front of us that needs us. So of course I will make a call to let your voice be heard through voting [Vote! Vote! Vote!] and to do what you can in your community to ensure other voices are heard as well. 

But I think it is also important we remember why we head to the polls; Why we all care about those in leadership positions who we may have limited if any contact with. Because we have concerns matched with hope, pain matched with a yearning for healing. I believe 2 things are critically important here…

1. To understand the American struggles, to understand the American pain, the truest source in the age of misinformation is the source itself: ourselves and our neighbors. 

2. Our leaders are not the only ones with power to heal our pain, to lessen our struggle. We have a responsibility and a power here too.

This year needs us doing everything we can to help heal our communities. We may feel at times we are powerless in this -- the forces causing this pain seem overwhelming and unyielding, and we seem small in this ocean. But the healing moments at places of worship or online social forums and the times we ourselves are navigating the raging waters of trauma, saved by friends, family and even strangers, prove otherwise. We just need to be willing to see the pain in front of us. 

As we near this critical election, a common question I hear is “But how could they vote for him?” Depending on the asker, this question could refer to either “him” on the ballot for the presidency this year. The interesting thing about this question is it seems to be rarely asked of the people who could actually answer it. Many would claim the answer doesn’t truly matter this year - that our lives are on the line, our future is on the line, the foundations of our country are on the line and the only thing that matters is that the person who can correct our course sits in the Oval Office come February. In slight irony, I would say that might actually be the common answer we would get on both sides if we actually were willing to have the conversation we are refusing to have at this moment. 

It is time we asked. In a world where there is newfound weight of the simple greeting “How are you doing?," it is time we reached out with genuine curiosity. Not with the goal of changing people’s minds or votes but instead, even when that might not be possible, giving them a listening ear as they do the same for you; For us to better understand each other, to help hold each other during this time, to understand the pain that probably won't be fully healed in 4 years and will need our collective work in the long run. Because, once the dust has settled in the aftermath of the election, we are each other’s neighbors, fellow Americans all fighting for a better tomorrow and all in need of healing.

The Limits of Listening

At what point do you stop trying to listen to people who are actively oppressing you and others? This was the question I was asked during a recent conversation about the limits of listening. It’s a common theme I hear from advocates who are concerned about the “listen first” approach. Underneath the question lies assumptions and legitimate concerns that must be addressed directly so we can listen first without fear.

There’s concern that by listening you are validating or platforming a perspective (you’re not). That it precludes other forms of advocacy and civil disobedience (it doesn’t). Or that listening to those causing suffering is not worthwhile because you already know what they have to say (you don’t). There is concern that perhaps it doesn’t matter what they say because what matters is they’re wrong and they’re not going to change. We feel that instead that time should be spent listening to, comforting, and fighting for victims (or at least posting on social media). 

It’s also painful. It’s hard to understand how a fellow human being could be so deluded or evil. It’s frustrating, isolating, and a breeding ground for cynicism. 

Fortunately, listening first to understand is not just the right thing to do to rebuild relationships, but it’s also the smart thing to do to fight for justice and change minds. Putting aside the possibility that by listening you could discover all the ways that you are wrong (that would be a bridge too far), when you understand somebody’s worldview from their perspective, you learn how they came to their beliefs and how they could be persuaded. Further, the sincere effort of listening and building trust in relationships across difference is a precursor to changing minds. In other words, by listening first to understand, you will not only know what could be said to have an impact -- you will be who needs to say it. 

At what point do you stop trying to listen to people who are actively oppressing you and others? 

Never.

I’m Not the Only One: Dealing with Grief in the Time of COVID

Physical distancing, necessitated by COVID-19, has left many of us feeling an unprecedented level of loneliness. Important events like birthdays and graduations have been postponed, morphed into strange digital events, or completely ignored. Even the casual get-togethers and accidental run-ins with old friends that we used to take for granted seem like events from some hyper-social alternate universe.

While this has been difficult, I’ve tried to contextualize my experience by appreciating my privileged ability to work from home, while others are forced to leave their houses for work or be fired. These “essential” workers risk their lives every day in order to provide for themselves and their families as well as to ensure services like food service and healthcare experience limited interruption. Unfortunately, my relatively sheltered and privileged reality came crashing down one morning several weeks ago. On May 8, I awoke to the news that my aunt—who had bravely battled cancer for seven years—had taken a drastic turn for the worse. She was ending her chemotherapy treatment and would be under hospice care for her few remaining days.

After months of intentionally avoiding family gatherings, mainly so I didn’t risk exposing my aunt’s already weakened immune system to the virus, I now had only a matter of days left with her. But even the decision to rush to be with her—something that under any other circumstances would have been a no-brainer—was now one with significant potential consequences. What if our family coming together would cause one of my grandparents to get sick? Could we really withstand another loss? While we did ultimately spend my aunt’s final two days together as a family, it largely occurred from a distance of six feet and behind the cover of masks that concealed all but our tear-filled eyes. 

After her passing, we were confronted by the question of the funeral. My aunt was a teacher for 27 years, meaning that in addition to family and friends, hundreds of former colleagues and students would certainly want to attend. Given the reality of the pandemic, however, the funeral was limited to immediate family, and seating was arranged in a socially distanced manner. Funerals are never enjoyable, but sitting in the church that day, with its cavernous ceilings and endless rows of pews—making the already small gathering feel even smaller—left me with a depth of sadness I had never before experienced and hope to never experience again. 

In the midst of this immense sadness, however, I’ve been blessed to see the lengths at which people are willing to go to comfort each other in times of hardship. A few weeks after the funeral, nearly one hundred of my aunt’s former co-workers organized a parade. They walked (in a socially-distanced manner, of course) down the street while my family and I sat in the front yard. They stopped and shared stories about the ways in which my aunt had touched their lives and made a positive impact on them. Despite the physical distance, I left feeling a close, personal proximity that I had been lacking these past few months. It was a simple act that took no more than an hour, but its impact will be felt for a lifetime.

I am far from the only person who has experienced loss during this time. Countless others have lost friends and family members to the virus, unable to visit them for fear of infection. More still have lost jobs and are facing what looks to be the greatest global economic downturn in decades. On top of all of this, the inequalities that have for too long gone unaddressed in our country have reached the point where they can no longer be ignored. The stark divisions in ideology regarding how we proceed from here have left almost everyone with feelings of uncertainty and distrust. Distrust of one another, of the government, and for some, I imagine, even distrust of themselves and their long-held beliefs.

As these examples and countless others illustrate, grief and anxiety are widespread phenomenona that touch each and every one of us at some point in our lives. Despite this fact, we often view them as discrete experiences that can only be understood through our self-centered worldview. If anything good can come from this crisis, I hope it is a broader understanding of our collective affliction. 

It is easy to turn inward during this time. To fall back and wallow in self-pity at the grand injustice of my personal grief. But this is neither a healthy nor fulfilling way to deal with such an experience. Rather, I am trying to think of others who may be going through a painful experience and how I can reach out and comfort them. As I experienced during my aunt’s parade, small acts of kindness and connection can have significant and lasting effects, effects that I hope anyone struggling can feel. But it requires us to set aside our egocentric tendencies and connect through our common struggle of the human experience. As the campaign I am working on would say, #LetsGoThere!

Opinion: Minneapolis is an example of how we can begin #WeavingCommunity

If you’ve turned on the news or checked social media in the past few weeks, you’ve likely seen at least one story framing the nationwide protests as tearing communities apart, causing mass destruction, and exposing the sharp divisions in our country. There are indeed sharp divisions in our country, and some destruction of property has occurred. I believe, however, that much of the media’s coverage has been a function of the old media adage, “if it bleeds, it leads.” People enjoy consuming controversial content, even better if what it shows is violent. We enjoy contrasting our own groups—always correct, intelligent, and civilized—with the “strange” nature of “the other.” As a Minnesota native who has witnessed the epicenter of these protests first hand, however, my experience is quite different from what you may see on your nightly news coverage. It has been one of communities coming together despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles in their way.

While I was born in the suburbs, I consider Minneapolis my home. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of time spent at Twins or Timberwolves games and exploring the city’s countless museums. As a college student, Minneapolis has shaped me into the person I am today. Whether it be volunteering in the community, experiencing the cultural confluence of places like the Midtown Global Market, or simply roaming the streets with friends on a summer evening, these experiences are foundational to my worldview. Although I had been away from Minneapolis since before the events of the past few weeks, I returned on June 5 to participate in a march. While riding around Lake Street (the area of Minneapolis where most of the protests, rioting, and looting occured) on my bicycle, I was struck by the stark dichotomy before my eyes. While the destruction was obvious—with the crumbled remains of burned businesses resembling images I have seen of war torn countries—there was also a tangible feeling of growth and opportunity. 

I saw people helping each other sweep rubble from the streets, donation sites where community members had dropped off food and essential goods like diapers, and countless murals and signs. This juxtaposition of destruction and growth, sadness and happiness, separation and togetherness, has remained at the forefront of my mind. Later that day, while waiting for the march to begin, I watched as thousands of people of all ages, races, genders, and ethnic groups gathered into the plaza outside US Bank Stadium to listen to speakers and local musicians. The fact that such a diverse group could come together around a common cause is hopefully something in which we can all take solace.

As the march commenced and we made our way out of the city center into the surrounding neighborhoods, I was unsure of what to expect. I was happy to find that seemingly the entire community was in support. Handmade signs decorated the lawns and windows of nearly every house we passed. People perched on their front steps or reclined on lawn chairs offered calls of support, handed out water bottles, or simply raised a fist in the air as a symbol of solidarity. Even as we blocked traffic, cars honked in support, heads poked out of windows to yell encouragement, or, at worst, they simply turned their car around quietly and went to find a detour.

When we reached the intersection of 38th and Chicago, outside of the grocery store where George Floyd was murdered, I was once again struck by the contrasting images before me. On one side of the street, stores covered in freshly painted murals commemorating George Floyd and others who have died at the hands of police officers were surrounded by people solemnly paying their respects. In the surrounding streets and parking lots, however, was what could only be described as a block party—a celebration of life.  

Neighbors handed out free food as the smoke from dozens of grills cooking hamburgers and chicken wafted over the crowd. A DJ spun dance records, a man with a Polaroid snapped photos, and community organizers delivered speeches from atop a stage. Towering above all of this was the Speedway sign—previously used to advertise deals on hot dogs and soft drinks—now emblazoned with black letters reading “George Floyd Square.” The imagery of a man’s name rising from the same concrete where he was pinned, pleading for his life, for nearly nine minutes sent a powerful message from the people of Minneapolis. They had reclaimed this tragic event and transformed it into a time of healing and togetherness.

It’s devastating that the impetus for this community building was the loss of a life, and obviously nothing that is done now will bring George Floyd back to his family. But the sense of community and the hope for a better future that I’ve witnessed in Minneapolis these past weeks has been unlike anything I’ve seen before. From the ashes of the destruction, the opportunity for new growth is one that we cannot fail to pursue. Particularly in the midst of a global pandemic that has separated us for months, the need for connection—real, authentic, human connection that transcends arbitrary divisions—is at an all-time high. I think we can all benefit from considering the example set by those in Minneapolis and what we can do in our own lives to begin #WeavingCommunity.

“We need to talk.” The conversations that paralyze and free us.

I hate sending that text. I hate exclaiming it in a call. I hate it. Just seeing the phrase sends shivers up my spine and I know I am not alone. But once the phrase is uttered or texted or simply conveyed in *that look* we have reached a point where some internal calculation tells us not talking is leaving us in an even more uncomfortable, unbearable state than that critical conversation would create. So we succumb to the inevitable – that every relationship and even our own personal well-being is completely dependent on communication. Problem solving just doesn’t happen through avoidance as much as we wish it would. But we also succumb to another, more wonderful, inevitable truth at the same time. Our feelings matter. Our opinions matter. Our perspective matters. And it is finally time we convey them.  

Ripping the Band-Aid off to start the healing.

We have learned from these conversations that sometimes for our own healing, ironically enough, we have to figuratively rip the Band-Aid off – without causing even more pain, we simply need to stop beating around the bush and engage in this thing we are trying so hard to avoid. So why are we so intent on avoiding something causing such pain? We generally don’t like change or loss and often, by the time something requires this cringe-inducing phrase, we have realized that this conversation could completely change or even jeopardize an important relationship.

Or, it could create an even deeper connection and more rewarding relationship. Because you understand each other, know each other, trust each other, lean into each other on an entirely new level. And at the end of it all, we lose the emotional burden that has been building in our silence.  

The preparation it deserves.

But these conversations do deserve some time, some delay, to be thought out. I find it interesting that for an interview or a presentation we will put the time and work in to ensure we communicate as effectively as possible. But when it comes to our relationships, the things that tend to matter most in our lives, we sometimes forget to put the same amount of work into the moments we need to communicate the best.

As a trained marketer, I appreciate that communicating best requires us to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes – to try to understand how they might interpret what we are saying or how we are saying it. Is our tone aggressive and accusatory? If we heard it, would we listen or would we shut down and simply get defensive? Do we have a clear goal in this conversation or are we simply shoving emotional burden from our shoulders to theirs?

We sometimes think our words will make perfect sense because they have been rolling around in our head long enough we can barely see any other perspective. But we have to remember that our friend or spouse or relative or coworker has not spent time in our head, hearing out thoughts. Seems like a simple concept – but it tends to only be simply understood in retrospect.    

So, we need to talk.

We are stuck in what feels like the most divisive, hate-filled, polarized time in recent history. We are all on edge, we are all emotional, we are all in need of some amount of healing – the unburdening like what I described above. But we are more likely to shut down and avoid conversation or simply take to social media and scream into the ether. But we can’t afford to do this – we have reached that calculation where avoidance and holding the burden will only cause more harm. It’s time to talk. It’s time to heal our own emotional burdens and the close relationships in our lives. It’s time to heal the ever-increasing open wounds in our society. But this will take preparation. This will take calming our extreme emotions, not to silence them, but to leave room to understand others’ – so in turn we can better communicate our own. We also need to understand that if we are asking others – friends, relatives or complete strangers – to listen to our story and our perspective we have to give the same respect to them. This is hard and painful and uncomfortable but it’s the only way to release our own burden and if we prepare ourselves for these conversations, the benefits could far outweigh the momentary discomfort. Your emotions matter. Your opinions matter. Your perspective matters. All of ours do. So, we need to talk. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Today. And we need to listen.

National Week of Conversation is April 17-25. How are you planning to participate? Conversations with loved ones? Conversations with strangers? Make sure to follow National Conversation Project to keep up to date on specific conversation events you can participate in.

Dear Hallmark Channel

This blog is in response to the recent news-making decisions by Hallmark Channel.

This is reminiscent of conversations with young children that at some point include "I am sorry you had to learn it this way." Hallmark Channel, you cannot side step controversy and division in today's society and I am sorry you had to learn it this way.

Your content is a necessary and welcome escape for many of us from the complexities and controversies of the world outside the comfort of our living rooms; or for some, even the worlds inside their homes and living rooms. We make fun of the simplicity and repetitiveness of the stories but cannot help feeling comfort and warmth from the predictability and inevitable fairytale endings. But we as viewers do understand when we turn the TV off, we return to a world of complications, division and unfortunately rampant hate. Dear Hallmark Channel, we are sorry you too had to turn your TVs off and reenter the world outside the perfectly timed and edited 2 hour romance movies...but welcome back.  

As someone who now regularly promotes the necessary and yet many times difficult practice of listening I do want to commend you as you clearly listened to your audience - maybe a little too well. You heard complaints from an important subset of your audience and decided to immediately respond to avoid controversy. And then you created it. So you responded again and retracted your original decision to fight division. But you might have fortified it.

Love is a fascinating and perplexing topic. An emotion that can only clearly be described by the word itself and even then no definition truly seems to do it justice. It cannot be contained in a box or boxed into a single, exactly mirrored experience for everyone. Though in every instance it seems to be freeing and beautiful and that seems to be the entertainment factor and craving that motivates me (and probably many of us) to turn the channel to yours. In my personal opinion, love is something to be uniquely determined by each person who feels it and in my experience, none of those many personal definitions of love have come close to negatively impacting my life, my family or my personal choices. But there are many who do not share that broader perspective of what love is and what it looks like. 

So here we are. At a crossroads the rest of society has been at for some time and one you might have felt pressure from before but maybe not as immediately and as heavily as you did this weekend. You tried to play the card of pleasing everyone until you realized that simply isn’t possible. But there is one very important lesson I think this taught all of us. 

Listening does not mean agreeing. Listening just means listening. 

In a world where kindness is praised as something extraordinary, it would seem you could not go wrong by being so kind as to listen first to understand. But even those of us who cling to the practice of #ListenFirst know that the purpose of that act is not to change our own minds or appeal to someone else’s demands. Instead, the purpose is to evolve our understanding and our opinions to make better (and specifically better informed) decisions - whether in solving problems at the personal, professional or national level. With the understanding that there is no way to satisfy everyone, we have to realize it is up to us to make our own decisions about our beliefs and identify among endless diverse opinions. It is simply important to base those decisions and evolve them in the endless teachings of others’ experiences and perspectives as well as our own. 

So where does this leave you, Hallmark Channel? It is time to choose your identity. What are your beliefs and values and how will that drive your content creation and advertising partnerships over the next year? Understanding that even choosing to be entirely inclusive will inherently exclude a less accepting audience - are you willing to make that sacrifice? Unfortunately, after the events of this weekend, eyes will be closely on you so you have reached the point where you have to choose. My advice: Continue listening but now with a slightly different purpose. Listen to your audience, your employees and society at large. Realize the issues around relationships and love and diversity, and don’t fluctuate your identity to match the loudest voice at the moment. Choose your identity to best reflect your voice in this moment, in these issues, in what love means. We do love love. It’s why we choose you in moments that seem to be drowning in hate. So what is “Hallmark” love? Go ahead and share, we are all listening now. 

I want to invite you to participate in #ListenFirstFriday. Our work at Someone To Tell It To is about the work of listening compassionately, intentionally, non-judgmentally. So many of us have held onto our unspeakable secrets for 10, 20, 50 or more years. “I’ve never told this to anyone else before,” is a confession we hear more times than we can number. So many of us live lives of desperate loneliness for many, many reasons. Loneliness, we have learned first-hand, is one major symptom felt by those who have been abused.

Every story of abuse is a story told by someone who doesn’t want to be alone anymore. The vitriol and condemnation we are hearing from so many people in our social media and technologically-connected culture about this issue today ignores and betrays the fact that real people are hurting and need to be heard and understood. They need to be healed and have their stories honored. They do not need to be victimized again as the subjects of a virtual shouting match.

We need to start by listening so that they, along with all the rest of us, can be part of the solution, rather than those who only complicate and exacerbate the problem. 

So, how do you do this?

1. Start simple - ask, "What's your story?" Then remember it's not your job to discount or discredit that story but to let them tell it, openly.

2. Remember that behind that story is a person, someone who matters and deserves to be heard.

3. Remember, above all else, that it's about what you believe that is vital.

What is vital today, on #ListenFirstFriday, is to be extra intentional about positively connecting with people you encounter. 

Happy #ListenFirstFriday!

Michael
Co-Founder
Someone to Tell it To

Just Like Us: #ListenFirst Tips for Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving! Thanksgiving is a day with turkey, stuffing, family, and—perhaps unfortunately—politics.

What should we do when politics pops up, sometimes out of nowhere? When something like a blueberry vs. cherry pie could start a debate, or when some cousin makes a remark comparing the sweet potatoes to our president’s skin color? Of course, the answer is to Listen First! But, what does that really mean for Thanksgiving?

I’d actually start by listening to what we already know about how similar we are. Just like us, the people with those different views have wants. Just like us, they have needs. And just like us, they have personal stories, filled with sorrows and regrets, but also of joys and triumphs. Just like us.

By listening to them, we can start hearing their humanity and even their character—how just like us, they take care of their kids and their family; how they’re often a good friend; or how they contribute to their community as a volunteer, a cop, a teacher, etc. Then we can listen for what conversation could be helpful. Maybe we could do something in the community together. Maybe they are curious to learn more about how the other side thinks. Or maybe it’s just best to connect on something totally different and talk about baseball, or movies, or music, or dogs – whatever. After all, there’s a lot more to life and family than politics.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where pies or side dishes can escalate into political battles. But remember we're dealing with not just positions but people who in many ways are just like us. They have needs and wants and stories, and they are probably just like us in that they care for those around them. With that perspective, we can really be thankful to share a meal and time with family and friends this Thanksgiving.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving! 

James Coan is a Strategic Advisor for Listen First Project

Also see: Top 10 Tips for a #ListenFirst Conversation

The Flames of Hate and How I Cope in the Smoke

Each passing day seems to increasingly expose the surprisingly utopian bubble where I grew up. A beautiful suburb filled with diversity. Truly perfect? No. But the community and schools were filled with a variety of religious backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds, racial and ethnic backgrounds, etc. The schools placed a focus on discussing and addressing the concept of diversity and inclusion. Whether we “succeeded” at perfect diversity or not, however success may be defined, it was surrounding each of us. For me, it became a priority for me in every environment I entered once I ventured off on my own as it had been so core to my younger years and growth.

Beyond the diversity, growing up Jewish, I was part of a large, vibrant Jewish community in the area – enough to lead to our public school respecting many major Jewish holidays with additional days off. This was normal life to me. Normal was my mom cooking Shabbat dinners for me and my friends – Jewish, Catholic and Hindu to name a few identities. Normal was friends having some basic understanding of Jewish culture, holidays and vocabulary (and me enjoying some basic understanding of their religions). Normal was friends not needing to feel my head to check for horns or question my intentions in life being any different from theirs.

Oh how I wish that bubble extended beyond the boundaries of my hometown.

A Week of Hate

Mailed pipe bombs to government and community leaders. Racially motivated murders at a grocery store. Fatal mass shooting at a synagogue.  Another week passes in 2018.

I am torn between feeling terrified and feeling numb. Saturday, the day of the shootings at Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill, PA, was a day of numbness. Squirrel Hill, another suburban US city known for its Jewish community, is where my mom was born and not far by car from where her family moved shortly after - where I grew up. We were warned about anti-Semitism around the country and around the world.  Last year, during the protests in Charlottesville, we even heard chants of it. But this weekend, we were faced with it head-on, no looking away, in a way we hadn’t felt in US history on US soil. But, as the theme of fortified and dangerous divisions has continued throughout 2018, I was left without shock. The deadliest anti-Semitic attack in our country’s history and I simply sat numb watching the headlines, videos, interviews and analysis of hate. Just our regular replay: breaking news alerts and panels of experts; videos of SWAT team or military teams or groups of local law enforcement rushing into a structure previously thought of as a safe space; pictures and lists of names memorializing those gone much too soon.

The days after were filled with sadness. For the lives lost. For all the lives lost this year due to hate or mass violence. For the Jewish community. For the American community. Then to end this week, back to the feeling of concern and, sure, terror. For our country. For our future.

We Hate Too Easy

Is this who we are? Is this who we are meant to be? From across the political aisle, from across geographical borders, from across our inserted, unseen divides, we stand and blame. We judge and criticize and let hate fester towards each other. We shoot words and bullets, both to cause equal harm. We don’t understand each other and ironically in a world that is over-connected, we elect to find our corners of like minds and disconnect from any others. In a world where likes and comments seem to be confused with self-worth, we crave to be the first and loudest and don’t always filter our most extreme thoughts. We throw the word hate around without weight and are quick to label a neighbor as an enemy. So are we surprised when that somehow manifests itself into what many of us would call unthinkable acts?

The Anti-Defamation League created a resource they call the “Pyramid of Hate”. At the bottom-most layer is “Biased Attitudes”, at the top, “Genocide”, with “Discrimination” neatly sitting in the middle. They speak to the fact that the top of a pyramid is completely dependent on the foundation that sits below it. Similarly, something as common and simple as a biased attitude potentially builds into violent acts. The ADL discusses how normalizing the bottom layers can, maybe inadvertently, lead to normalization of the more drastic behavior that sits above.

We seem quicker to fortify divides than to bridge them. We find it easier to blame than try to understand. We create a hate culture that is no longer sitting in pockets. Our actions and our words are fueling fires that allow it to linger in the cloud of smoke above us. And in the aftermath of this last week, we yet again are in darkened smoke wondering if it will ever clear. Well, I have not lost hope.

Cooling the Fires

Can we rid the world of hate entirely? I don’t know. But something needs to change. We need to leave it only in the corners we can’t access, and we need to better recognize when we ourselves are fueling flames.

With the Pyramid of Hate in mind, we have a chance to catch the fire before it takes over. We know bias is all around us, including within us. Though there will still be extreme hate that creates itself within communities we don’t have access to, there are too many stories I have heard of those who were found by extremism at a point of complete vulnerability and desperation for belonging. As we increase our division, I fear that we are leaving more and more longing for belonging, feeling unheard and feeling undervalued.

So, first, let us look inward and set an example for those around us. Let us within ourselves try to allow love to respond instead of hate. Let us find a curiosity underneath it all that makes us want to reach out and learn more, instead of sit back and judge from afar.

Then I make a personal promise in the memory of those we have lost, and I ask you to join me, to reach out to the stranger. If somehow I am lucky enough to cross-paths with an anti-Semite and they are willing to listen, I will share my story to simply give perspective to who I am and who I am not. But for anyone I disagree with, I will reach out with an intent to engage in conversation where we #ListenFirst to understand each other before leaping to conclusions or trying to change each other’s minds. And for those who seem alone and lost, I will try to reach out to listen to their story and give them open ears and an open heart.

And even for those with bias and hate, I will listen to understand better where and how they reached their conclusions as that perspective will only help me better explain mine. When we attack, they attack. When we listen, they may listen. And when we talk, we open minds including our own. We humanize each other, and we quiet a spark instead of fanning a flame. So let’s talk about hate; let’s talk to stop hate in its tracks.

Jaclyn Inglis is on the Listen First Project Executive Team and serves as Partnerships Director for National Conversation Project

Candidates Nationwide Commit to #ListenFirst to Understand; Comment on #ListenFirstFriday (Press Release)

Candidates Nationwide—Including Duetting Opponents in Vermont—Commit to #ListenFirst to Understand. Also Comment on #ListenFirstFriday.

Listen First Project Recognizes Cultural Influencers Who Join the #ListenFirst Movement as #ListenFirst Leaders. Dozens of Federal, State, and Local Candidates—Republican, Democrat, and Independent—Have Stepped Up to Help Mend the Frayed Fabric of America. 4 Days Before Election, Statements Support #ListenFirstFriday. 

As Election Day approaches, many political candidates—including two opponents for Vermont State House who recently made national headlines singing a duet—have joined the #ListenFirst movement alongside other cultural influencers by committing to “Listen First to understand,” earning recognition as #ListenFirst Leaders. While welcoming all candidates to join thousands of others in the growing #ListenFirst movement, Listen First Project and National Conversation Project—the shared movement platform—are strictly nonpartisan and do not endorse or campaign for any individual candidate or issue.

"Cultural influencers, especially those seeking elected office, have a special opportunity to lead in turning the tide of rising rancor and deepening division in America. We are experiencing a dark moment as a society—political opponents targeted with bombs, Americans slaughtered in a place of worship, people gunned down in a grocery store due to the color of their skin, all amidst another socially polarized election," said Pearce Godwin, Founder of Listen First Project and Executive Director of National Conversation Project.

"The words and actions of our civic and cultural leaders play a role in shaping attitudes, speech, and behavior among society at large," adds Godwin. "We appreciate those leaders who have made a commitment to engage with fellow Americans as human beings worth understanding rather than as enemies with bad intentions or threats to be destroyed. Their example inspires others to move from a corrosive mindset of 'us vs. them' toward 'me and you.' Revitalizing America and finally achieving its promise as 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' will require all of us, together."

#ListenFirst Leaders in final days of campaigns offer comments for #ListenFirstFriday

Zac Mayo & Lucy Rogers—candidates for Vermont State House who sang a duet following debate: Zac said, "I was honored to be recognized as a #ListenFirst Leader, along with my opponent. I believe strongly in mending the wounds of division and de-escalating the hyper-partisan culture we live in. The fire and fury of today doesn't lead to solutions, but instead breeds distrust and a further breakdown of our culture. My belief has always been that all voices need to be heard, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on." Lucy added, "I'm proud to have been recognized by the Listen First Project as a leader who pledges that 'I will listen first to understand.'"

Nick Thomas—Congressional candidate in CO-2: "People across the spectrum recognize that we're facing a cultural and political crisis. Surveys report that most of us see fewer things that bind Americans together today and have few or no friends from the other side. Experts warn of a 'soft civil war.' The current trend of vilifying people rather than honestly discussing positions is a disaster for our society and governance. I'm proud to champion and practice #ListenFirst. Listening first to understand others, especially those with whom we disagree, is the only way we move forward together and address the greatest issues of our time."

Cooper Nye—Congressional candidate in MI-11: "Make no mistake: Tribalism is unraveling the fabric of our free society. I signed the #ListenFirst pledge because America's greatness and our shared prosperity demand we listen first to understand one another and bridge divides now—not later."

Joe Pinion—Candidate for New York State Assembly: "We are the most connected society in the history of the world, and yet today we find ourselves more divided than ever before. In these times of great uncertainty and community upheaval, it is more important than ever to remain committed to the eternal moral quest for common ground and common purpose. I’m proud to stand with #ListenFirst and all those committed to the work required to help resolve our differences."

Ryan Watts—Congressional candidate in NC-6: "I’ve committed myself to listening to the people throughout the campaign. Our future is dependent on #ListenFirst Leaders willing to set aside party affiliation to truly represent the people."

Frank Ward—Candidate for Austin, TX City Council: "Many Americans are currently questioning whether we are and can still be a nation of the highest ideals. The #ListenFirst movement is a direct response to the frustration many are feeling about our frayed public discourse. It is a particularly American sensibility to endlessly pursue common ground. We can and must do just that. Listening first in our public discourse should be the standard, not the exception. Both the beautiful idea and reality of America continue to march on because we have always striven to appeal to ‘the better angels of our nature.’ There’s no time like the present to get back out there and engage with voters and neighbors of all political stripes and perspectives. Imagine what we could all learn if we simply listened first.”

Emmanuel Wilder—Candidate for North Carolina House: "Being a #ListenFirst leader is a responsibility. We have real problems in our society and if we are going to solve any of them, we are going to have to understand one another. That starts by listening, having a truly honest dialogue about where we are, how did we get here, and where we want to go. By encouraging others to listen first, we can bring a generational change to our society."

Karen McCormick—Congressional candidate in CO-4: "I'm running to restore government that's of, by, and for the people again. That requires listening first to the people—showing up to gain greater understanding of the issues we face. That's why it's always been my priority to build a close relationship with the people of our district."

Jamie Schoolcraft—Congressional candidate in MO-7: "A true representative should be the voice of the people, which requires listening first to them."

Former Presidents Bush and Obama have also spoken to the problem and solution. President George W. Bush has decried, “discourse degraded by casual cruelty,” observing that “argument turns too easily to animosity; disagreement escalates into dehumanization.” In opening his Foundation Summit, President Barack Obama said, “Why don't we practice what we preach and listen first.”

Other cultural influencers championing #ListenFirst include former party chairs (Donna Brazile & Michael Steele), journalists (Bret Baier), athletes (Dominique Wilkins), business leaders (Stephen M.R. Covey), activists (Susan Bro & Christian Picciolini), musicians (Peter Yarrow), mayors (Robyn Tannehill), superintendents (Dr. Catherine Edmonds), doctors (Dr. Brian Williams & Dr. Mark Goulston), and religious leaders (F. Willis Johnson & Cissie Graham Lynch).

What is National Conversation Project & #ListenFirstFriday?

There is growing, even violent, division in communities across America. The problem is that we increasingly don't just disagree with one another. We dislike, distrust, even despise those who see the world differently. We’re withdrawing from conversations—eroding relationships and understanding—fraying our social fabric. 75% of Americans say this problem has reached a crisis level. Experts say the solution is to cultivate more positive social connections. Thankfully, 75% of Americans are willing to practice conversations across divides, and 36%—more than 100 million people—want to see a national campaign to that end. National Conversation Project—powered by 150+ organizations—is the platform for that movement.

National Conversation Project seeks to mend the frayed fabric of America by bridging divides one conversation at a time. We promote National Weeks of Conversation, #ListenFirst Fridays, and any conversation inviting people of all stripes to revitalize America together. NCP aggregates, aligns, and amplifies the efforts of more than 150 hosting partners to mainstream conversations in which we #ListenFirst to understand. www.nationalconversationproject.org #ListenFirst

Every Friday, National Conversation Project elevates the #ListenFirst spirit and practice, encouraging all to be extra intentional about positively connecting with folks they encounter on #ListenFirstFriday. Friday is a great day to foster new connections, share stories of conversations earlier in the week, and consider opportunities to #ListenFirst over the upcoming weekend. Please share thoughts, pictures, and video using #ListenFirstFriday, encouraging all of us to #ListenFirst to understand.

References

Weber Shandwick, Civility in America VII: The State of Civility

Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

###

Rather Than Argue Over 'Civility,' Let’s Listen First to Understand

In the midst of last week’s National Week of Conversation, a renewed debate broke out among top political leaders including two former First Ladies over the merits of 'civility.' While I don’t use the word ‘civility’ in encouraging Listen First conversations across divides, the ‘civility’ debate hits close to home for our more than 150 #ListenFirst Coalition partner organizations who are driving the new National Conversation Project to bridge divides and mend the frayed fabric of America. 

This debate on the merits of ‘civility’—occurring between and within ideological camps—epitomizes the hyper-polarization and tribalism that has gripped American society. Increasingly, we don’t just disagree; we distrust, dislike, even despise those who see the world differently. Animosity for positions is becoming contempt for the people who hold them. Difference and disagreement are deeply personal as we both rage against and recoil from those we see as enemies across widening divides—political, racial, religious, economic, educational, generational, and more. 

We frequently find ourselves talking past those with whom we disagree, dismissing them as enemies with bad intentions, threats to be destroyed, rather than fellow Americans—human beings—worth understanding. We often make very little effort to understand people outside our many increasingly narrow camps. We’re withdrawing from conversations—eroding relationships and understanding—which threatens the foundational fabric of America, creating a cultural crisis. 75% of Americans say the way we interact with each other across differences has reached a crisis level, according to Weber Shandwick’s Civility in America survey.

Part of the challenge is that many of the words we use mean very different things to different people. ‘Civility’ is no different. There is the formal definition of the term (politeness and courtesy) and then more toxic connotations. Calls for ‘civility’ are understandably threatening to some who’ve been disproportionately silenced over time, and still today. The abstract concept of ‘civility,’ however understood, is a distraction from what we believe America needs right now—fresh conversations including all voices, not about terms or behavior but with each other, sharing our diverse perspectives, experiences, hopes, and fears.

The many organizations behind National Conversation Project are interested in encouraging a shift in attitude and behavior—beginning with ourselves—that can turn the tide of rising rancor and deepening division in this country. We humbly suggest that an effort to listen first to understand each other, especially those with whom we disagree, would move us toward a stronger and more equitable future for all—one built on relationships created by conversation. Whether in personal relationships (in which being heard and understood is part of being loved) or on the front lines of activism (where conversations can galvanize support and increase understanding of resistance), we believe listening first to understand has the power to make all of us stronger.

As experts see America “at the beginning of a soft civil war” and say the solution is “more positive social connections,” we are committed to encouraging conversations that move ‘us vs. them’ toward ‘me & you.’ All are welcome and necessary. This unprecedented collaborative effort to bridge divides won’t work if only a portion of Americans join the conversation. We recognize that for much of America’s history, many have been excluded from the conversation. That must change now.

75% of Americans say they're willing to set a good example by practicing conversations across divides, according to Weber Shandwick. 36%—more than 100 million people—want to see a national campaign promoting such conversations. That campaign is the new National Conversation Project which is promoting in-person and virtual conversations that prioritize listening first to understand on any topic during semi-annual National Weeks of Conversation, on the first Friday of each month (Listen First Fridays), and throughout the year—inviting people of all stripes to revitalize America together.

Leaders from both sides of the aisle similarly recognize the problem and solution. President George W. Bush has decried, “discourse degraded by casual cruelty,” observing that “argument turns too easily to animosity; disagreement escalates into dehumanization.” In opening his Foundation Summit, President Barack Obama said, “Why don't we practice what we preach and listen first.”

As for other national leaders, we invite them to join the many thousands of Americans who have committed to "listen first to understand." Dozens of current candidates for office—across the ideological spectrum—have signed the Listen First Pledge and are campaigning as Listen First Leaders. Other influencers championing #ListenFirst include former party chairs (Donna Brazile & Michael Steele), journalists (Bret Baier), athletes (Dominique Wilkins), business leaders (Stephen M.R. Covey), activists (Susan Bro & Christian Picciolini), musicians (Peter Yarrow), mayors (Robyn Tannehill), superintendents (Dr. Catherine Edmonds), doctors (Dr. Brian Williams), and religious leaders (F. Willis Johnson & Cissie Graham Lynch).

Revitalizing America and finally achieving its promise as “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” will require all of us, together. Let’s get started.

Pearce Godwin is Founder & CEO of Listen First Project, Executive Director of National Conversation Project, and leader of the #ListenFirst Coalition of 150+ partner organizations. He catalyzes the #ListenFirst movement to mend the frayed fabric of America by bridging divides one conversation at a time. Godwin can be reached at Pearce@ListenFirstProject.org.

Why #ListenFirst

In a very simple sense, conversations boil down to speaking and listening. On one side of the equation, you have an individual who is disclosing, sharing, laying bare his soul. When we open up to another, we become vulnerable, trusting that on the other side of the equation is a person who is genuinely trying to understand our perspective. When this ideal is met, not only are conversations more productive but meaningful relationships form. As the theologian Karl Barth once said, “If I give you my time, I give you everything I have, I give you all that I am.” When we take the time to really listen to others, we are helping to build a foundation for a lasting relationship. And it is in relationships that we learn to work together, regardless of divides.

National Conversation Project wants to highlight the power of listening because of what speakers often find on the other side of the conversation equation, an adversary who seems to go to great lengths to tear us down. It has become more than simply disagreeing with opinions, something that effective listeners can do. As an excellent example of this, take the podcast, Conversations With People Who Hate Me.

In Conversations, Dylan Marron records Skype calls with people who have posted hateful messages about him on the Internet. As he explained in a Wired interview, “I wanted to put in the world an example of two people talking, without the goal of agreeing with each other, but also without the goal of shutting each other down.” Indeed, there is not much agreement that happens in the 30-minute episodes of Conversations, especially about policies or social issues. There is, however, quite a bit of opening up, especially about why each person believes what he or she believes.

The kind of change we find in Conversations involves a change of heart, a connection between two people even if they might be divided in their beliefs. In the introduction to episode four, Facts and Feelings, Dylan reminds listeners that “there is a person on the other side of the screen.” What is so amazing about this statement is that the person to whom Dylan was referring was at one point posting inflammatory personal attacks!

To humanize “people who hate me” involves a large dose of empathy, what scholars define as our ability to understand another person’s perspective, their point-of-view. Colloquially, empathy is the ability to walk a mile in another’s shoes – something that is neither literally nor figuratively possible, but something toward which good listeners strive. Good listeners suspend judgment, not to say “I know how you feel” but to ask questions and prompt extended disclosure from the other in order to get the full story. Dylan gets this full story by asking why, the kind of why that is less about “why could you do such a thing” and more about “why do you believe what you believe.”

If empathy is about a genuine curiosity of other people and the reasons behind their beliefs, acceptance is about hearing these reasons as legitimate, at least from that person’s perspective. The power of acceptance comes from being heard on our own terms, in our own language and our unique ways of seeing the world. In episode four, Dylan responds to Ann’s comment that she is nervous by saying, “Don’t be nervous. Just be you. And I’ll be me. And that’s all we can agree to.” In this way, Ann is not forced to be a stereotype or how Dylan wants her to be. Instead, she is free to be her, to open up on her own terms and be heard as a person rather than a position. Ann is accepted and thus able to be herself; and Dylan is interested in that self, to listen to Ann as she is, not as how he wants her to be.

And so the purpose of a Listen First mindset is to connect with others, not on positions per se but on a fundamentally more interpersonal level. If listening is about relationships and relationships begin with connection, then listening to connect is the first skill that NCP tries to foster. Listening to connect is about exhibiting empathy in the form of perspective taking and acceptance of the individual. Indeed, it is much easier for us to agree with a person’s position on himself than we are with his position on some controversial issue.

As Conversations illustrates, the connection we get from listening has little to do with agreement (or even agreeing to disagree). In episode 2, for instance, Dylan did not suddenly realize “being gay is a sin” after his conversation with Josh, and neither did Josh suddenly accept Dylan’s lifestyle. Both did, however, feel more understood, and both had a better understanding of the other. Each also felt accepted for who he was. When based in empathy and acceptance, conversations create powerful connections, something each person can build on if they so desire toward a deeper and more meaningful relationship. These desirable outcomes are only possible if we listen first to understand. So, #ListenFirst.

Graham Bodie, PhD is Chief Listening & Operations Officer at Listen First Project and a recognized listening expert

Listen First Celebrates 5 Years!

Five years ago today, Listen First Project came alive. I had written a blog—"It's Time to Listen"—in Africa before returning home and was amazed to see such a simple message resonate through major newspapers all over America. So we launched Listen First Project to translate those words into action and make an impact on society. One year ago, the tragedy in Charlottesville compelled us to focus on this mission full-time. 

Over the last five years and especially the past 12 months momentum has grown to mend the frayed fabric of America by bridging divides with conversations that prioritize listening first to understand. It's been recognized in reporting that we're "taking heroic steps to get people to talk to each other," descriptions of us as the "heart of bridging divides," and coverage in USA Today and New York Times. Our strategy has always been collaborative to make the greatest possible impact, for which 97 organizations have joined the Listen First Coalition! The #ListenFirst hashtag, adopted for April's National Week of Conversation, has reached millions of people. And now we're taking the #ListenFirst movement to much greater heights by aligning and amplifying 100+ efforts to bridge divides across the country into a mainstream National Conversation Project launching in October! I hope you'll join this unprecedented effort as a Hosting Partner or Sustaining Member.

Past Year Highlights

• The first National Week of Conversation—based on #ListenFirst—engaged 130 partner organizations hosting thousands of conversations across divides in 32 states. 
• We're now launching and leading an ongoing National Conversation Project to mainstream conversations across divides with monthly events coast to coast. 
• Our first large-scale event, Listen First in Charlottesville, brought local and national leaders together across divides, inspired change, and was featured in national media including the New York Times.
• The #ListenFirst hashtag reached millions and was promoted by celebrities, journalists, and politicians as we recognized influential Listen First Leaders across the country.
• We launched Business Recognition and Training programs.
• Our columns and interviews appeared in print, radio, podcast, and television nationwide, and were shared by thousands of people.  
• The Listen First Pledge earned thousands more signatures.
• We expanded the Top 10 Tips for Listen First Conversations. 
• We began designing programs for Listen First Schools. 
• Listen First Coalition membership skyrocketed to 97 aligned organizations.  
• We expanded internationally with chapters and engagements in the Netherlands, Uganda, and Japan. 

Thank you for championing #ListenFirst in your community as we revitalize America together!

Pearce Godwin
Founder & CEO, Listen First Project
Director, National Conversation Project

A Year Later, Charlottesville Revisited

This weekend marks the one-year anniversary of the terror that tore through the streets of Charlottesville last August. I experienced that weekend and the aftermath as UVA Student Body President. The city and university are still grappling with trauma, pain, and anger as centuries-long conflicts have surfaced and dominated public discourse. Charlottesville has shown us that the processes of community reconciliation and understanding take time, patience, sacrifice, and shared commitment to a united and just society. With divisions deep and common understanding lacking, it's not been easy. 

Listen First Project became part of Charlottesville's journey with our Listen First in Charlottesville event in April. See the videos of powerful conversations and perspectives from local and national leaders who joined us. Our work in Charlottesville is featured in the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. Pearce shared his thoughts in a recent television interview. One of the Listen First champions who spoke in Charlottesville was former white supremacist Christian Picciolini. See his special "Breaking Hate" on MSNBC Sunday at 9PM ET.

Now that I've graduated from UVA, I'll spend the anniversary standing against dehumanizing hate in Washington, DC, where the same dark forces are set to convene again and face counter-protesters. As we all remember the tragedy that further divided a community and nation, let's reflect on the ways that we can promote equity, openness, understanding, and peace in our own relationships and communities.

Sarah Kenny
Listen First Project Vice President
UVA Student Body President '17-'18

Listening while "Woke" and White

Guest Blogger: Bryan McCann, Associate Professor, Louisiana State University 

When we think about listening across lines of difference with regard to racial justice and community activism, it is tempting to think in deeply polarized terms. We ask how we can best listen and deliberate with individuals whose opinions and experiences vary significantly from our own. Such an approach to listening is, of course, absolutely vital and well worth pursuing. When we think in such polarized terms however, we often neglect important considerations about listening between individuals with shared commitments regarding the kind of world in which we wish to live. Being on the same side of a controversial issue can create invaluable bonds of solidarity and friendship, but also lead us to ignore important differences that can threaten relationships and undermine progress.

I write this as a white man who has spent the majority of my adult life interested in the experiences of black people in the United States. I am a professor of communication studies specializing in rhetoric and culture. I recently published a book chronicling the emergence of gangsta rap during the war-on-crime era of the 1980s and 1990s. I have also written several academic and public articles addressing matters of racial inequality in the criminal justice system, I teach classes on similar topics and have engaged in community organizing work around issues such as the death penalty, mass incarceration, and labor rights. I do not offer this brief resume in the service of establishing my credibility as a “woke” white guy who does work related to race. Rather, my goal is to complicate my own credibility and invite similarly positioned white people to do the same.

While I believe a principled commitment to creating a fairer society motivates my work, I have not always excelled at listening. The nature of racism in the U.S. is incredibly complex. I understand racism not only as the expression of personal prejudices between individuals, but also as a historically durable and flexible system that rationalizes disadvantages for some on the basis of socially-produced markers of difference. My engagements with racism have led me to consume volumes of academic and political literature with an eye toward better grasping what it means to live in a racist nation. I have learned a lot over the years, but I have also frequently moved forward with an inflated sense of my ability to understand the nature of race and racism in the U.S. I have participated in coalitions with people of color in which I come to the table with a pre-figured and often inflexible understanding of what the problem is and how we should move forward. I have written on issues that are matters of life and death for black and brown people in the U.S. with what, in hindsight, strike me incredibly arrogant assumptions about my grasp of the subject matter. In short, I have spent a good deal of time speaking and writing, but not nearly enough time listening.

For white people who want to work toward racial justice in the U.S., we are only as helpful as our capacity to listen. No amount of theoretical depth or historical knowledge regarding the history of racial struggle can replace the practice of listening to individuals for whom racism is a fact of daily life. Such listening includes entering into activist spaces with a desire to learn from stakeholders for whom police brutality, mass incarceration, and other matters of racial justice are not abstractions, but everyday realities. When I have allowed myself to listen in such settings, I have gained invaluable insights from individuals who, regardless of educational background or profession, possess knowledge I can never hope to acquire. These insights have always made me a better participant in such work, for there is no book on a topic such as the death penalty that can provide me with the kind of knowledge possessed by, for instance, a woman whose son languishes on death row for a crime he most likely did not commit.

Another avenue for listening is to engage with the world of letters, music, and other forms of artistry from people of color. While history and theory can draw a comprehensive map of how inequality works in our world, it is no substitute for the kinds of artistry that can, to paraphrase the iconic black novelist Richard Wright, plant flesh on the bones of the skeleton of society. In fact, reading Wright’s highly influential 1940 novel Native Son was a turning point for me in terms of being a better listener with regard to racial justice. Native Son tells the tragic story of Bigger Thomas, a young black man living on poverty on the Chicago South Side. After a series of violent events, all of which were a function of poverty and racial inequality, Bigger finds himself standing trial for the murder of an affluent white family’s daughter and is sentenced to death. While Native Son is a multi-layered testament to the consequences of racial inequality in the U.S., I was most struck by the white characters in the novel who claimed that they were on Bigger’s side. Written in the years leading up to the Second World War, Native Son features several white Communist characters who seize upon Bigger’s ordeal as an opportunity to advance the party line on racial and economic justice. Wright calls our attention to how much time these characters spend speaking in lofty platitudes about class struggle and racial harmony while Bigger sits silently. At one point in the novel, Wright narrates, “Bigger listened to the tone of their voices, to their strange accents, to the exuberant phrases that flowed so freely from their lips.” These white people were speaking, but not in a language that Bigger understood. While he was the one facing the electric chair, the exuberant Communist characters in Native Son left little room for Bigger to speak. They spied in his experiences an example they could generalize and use in the service of a larger cause.

Upon finishing Native Son, I felt as if Wright was speaking directly to me. I saw myself in these well-intentioned Communist characters. I wondered how many times I had filled a room with my voice and ideas without taking time to listen to people whose experiences with racism and poverty granted them a level of expertise I would never achieve. How many times had I, whether as an author, teacher, or activist viewed the flesh and blood experiences of others as raw material for an argument that would advance a cause about which I cared or my own academic career? The answer, I fear, is frequently. Another deeply influential black American author, James Baldwin, once warned readers that reducing black life to the practice of politics often stripped it of its individuality and substance. He wrote, “Causes, as we know, are notoriously bloodthirsty.” Too often, our desire to master that which we wish to end, such as racism, leads us to ignore the complexity and voices of those for whom the stakes are life and death.

In the title of this article, I use the term “woke.” The term, derived from African American Vernacular English, refers to being deeply aware of matters of social justice. I am increasingly ambivalent about this term, especially when applied to white people such as myself. To say that one is “woke” implies finality, as if there is nothing left to learn. The moment we believe we have nothing left to learn is the moment we stop listening. To other white folks reading this piece, I want to suggest that we are always in a state of waking. For those of us who care deeply about racial justice and wish to use our abilities to that end, we should by all means continue doing so. But part of doing that work is to proceed with humility and to listen first as a matter of principle. Even the most credentialed white scholar or experienced white activist has an immeasurable amount to learn from people of color who experience the indignities of racism on a daily basis. This is not to suggest that we cannot or should not bring our own ideas and arguments to the table—quite the contrary. Rather, I am arguing that we will generate better ideas and make better arguments when we have sufficiently listened to those with whom we seek to work. Agreeing that we need to create a better world is only a first step toward bringing that world to fruition. The process moving forward is one that requires listening on all sides, and especially from those of us whose experiences have shielded us from the worst versions of that which we wish to change.

Courage for Conversation

America today is a nation of increasing animosity for those we don't understand. Our divisions are vivid, our shared humanity diminished. Many people feel our core values are being threatened. However, this fear looks very different across the ideological and demographic spectrum. While we may disagree on the source and nature of our challenges, there is a shared sense that something is terribly wrong.

Conversation—listening first to understand—is a powerful and necessary part of the solution. On this Fourth of July, may we reflect more on what unites us than divides us, have the courage for conversations across divides, and listen first to understand.