Author Archives: Andrew Chandler

Let's Talk About It: Avoiding "Group Polarization"

Posted on 07/11/2012 | 2 Comments

It’s nice to preach to the choir. It seems that all the world’s problems are solved when we talk with like minded people. In reality the practice can be damaging and dangerous, as was found by Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago.

He found that when deliberations and group discussions take place among “ideologically homogeneous” individuals the tendency is for the members of the group to become “more radicalized and to adopt positions more extreme that most would have adopted on their own,” often leading to the acceptance of fringe views. It’s a concept he refers to as “group polarization” and has “many implications for economic, political institutions.”[1]

Such is the case with immigration discussions. During the Republican Primary debates the rhetoric became increasingly extreme, with each candidate offering more radical ideas that were not only completely ridiculous, but dangerous. From building expensive and ill-conceived fences to making life so unbearable for fellow humans (including natural born citizens) that they “self-deport” to the electrified fence with a moat the candidates became caught up in the polarization that many pertinent aspects of immigration were completely ignored. Now that the discussion has opened, up there isn’t much talk about alligators and electricity. The ideas, while strong evidence of Prof. Sunstein’s research, were ridiculous and a product of the fringe. Of course the Right isn’t entirely to blame either. One need only skim comments on any only article to see the same group polarization occur in regards to all aspects of life, both political and personal, conservative and progressive, Baby Boomers and Millennials, men and women, and just about every. article. ever.

However, Sunstein also found that when multiple perspectives and competing views come together in respectful conversation people “often come to realize . . . that their own view is one-sided, or overly simplified, or in need of important qualification.” This in turn leads to at least the possibility that other views may contain insights, if not a moderation of previous views. Contrasting opinions are not only important, but vital to creating any beneficial and long lasting solutions and opening dialogue. With the recent watershed moments in politics on topics that are at once extremely influential on the nation and deeply personal the dialogue can go one of two ways; everyone can bunker down and continue to enforce “group polarization,” or they can open up respectful conversations with people who have different views, fostering goodwill and respect for other well thought out ideas and bringing about lasting change.

Such was the case for me during the past few weeks. I have a Facebook friend who

is very politically minded. He and I agree that we as a Nation face a plethora of problems, but disagree on almost every issue. It would be easy to ignore everything he posts, shake my head and write him off as uninformed, but he’s not. Instead, I know that I can share my opinions and he can share his and our questions can be answered. I don’t agree with everything he says, and I’m sure he shakes his head with most of my ideas, but we both go in well informed and I know that nothing he says is a personal attack, merely a different opinion. It’s gotten to the point that I look forward to our exchanges and the opportunity to understand completely valid and legitimate perspectives that may be different than mine. We have the same fundamental hopes for the future and want what we feel is best for the world, and I respect him more for having his own opinions.

There’s hope for the discourse of the country, and lasting change is possible, but compromise is crucial, and polarization is poison to progress. Seek to engage people with who you disagree with in positive conversation, and you’ll find that we all want what’s best and everyone who’s informed has some good ideas. Who knows, maybe you’ll even change your mind. I know I have.

 

[1] Cass R. Sunstein, “The Law of Group Polarization,” John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 91 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=199668). I first learned about Mr. Sunstein’s work from Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America, a

collection of interviews with prominent white nationalist groups edited by Carol M. Swain and Russ Nieli. I hope to use their book over the next few weeks to highlight some of the opinions of these groups that rarely see opposition because no one really knows what to say to it. Understanding their views will help combat their subtle attacks on acceptance and human respect.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Informed

Tagged , , ,

Power of the Pulpit: The Watchmen on the Tower

Posted on 08/19/2011 | Leave a comment

As has been indicated many times, several church leaders in Alabama have filed a lawsuit together against the State, claiming the new immigration laws violate their First Amendment rights. Some may question the role that these religious leaders have taken; others, perhaps, doubt the true effect a priest or bishop may have in the public sphere. However, history has shown that the men and women that lead the world’s churches often have more sway than organized political and social groups in bringing about change.

One such example manifests itself in 1939 in Nazi Germany. Hitler, supported by the philosophies of some eugenicists, sought to remove from society those whom he felt were unfit to live by euthanizing the physically and mentally handicapped. While the actual act–known as Aktion T4–was done as discreetly as possible, the ideologies behind it were dispersed among the populous, influencing thought. The economic benefits were taught in schools in addition to the propaganda so famous within his Reich. Quickly, however, the actions of the government became known, and most were appalled at the atrocities. The families of the deceased sought justice but could, in reality, do nothing, and those being killed were receiving that fate for the very fact they were unable to oppose.

Fortunately, those who were unable to defend themselves found a voice in a church. It wasn’t the largest church in the nation, and in fact, its leadership had signed a Concordant in 1933 agreeing to stay out of German affairs. The church was the Catholic Church–led primarily by Clemens August Graf von Galen, the bishop of Münster–in light of the mass murder broke its silence. In a series of sermons von Galen publicly derided the government for its complete disregard for human life and called for change.

So what makes Bishop von Galen, and by consequence, the Church, so important? First, he wasn’t a regular individual. When the government had talked about arresting him, as it had other protesters, it was concluded that any action taken against him would result in open revolt by the people; his voice carried beyond that of a regular individual. And it was his use of this voice that sets him apart even more.

Throughout the entire Aktion T4 travesty leaders of most the churches in Germany were writing letters and calling for change to the government. However, all of this was done in private and, as a result, was easy to ignore. von Galen’s words were dropped among German troops by the British army, and were plastered across the city. The government had no choice but to respond. In 1941, Hitler ended Aktion T4 officially, and though killing continued, the Churches had been at the forefront of the battle to defend those who could not defend themselves.

The parallels between Bishop von Galen and the church leaders of Alabama may seem to some at best, a stretch. There aren’t mass killings occurring, nor are the leaders deriding the government in sermons. But the fact that these men are willing to publicly use their standing as respected religious leaders to call for equality and the right to care for their fellow humans exhibits the same transcendent morals that led von Galen to protest: that regardless of social station, everyone is first a part of the human race and deserves to be treated as such.

These men in Alabama are claiming that what they believe is the commandment to be “good Samaritans” is being stopped by the strict laws established for harboring illegals. Some may question the “separation of Church and State” but in reality, these priests, bishops and ministers are merely practicing what they preach. The influence they have can bring attention to the problems and help instigate lasting, positive change.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Catholic Church, Nazi Germany, Power of the Pulpit, Religion

The Power of the Pulpit: An Introduction

Posted on 07/29/2011 | 1 Comment
Religion has, arguably, been the most influential institution of Western thought. From questions regarding doctrinal concerns and salvation to resolving personal disputes and dealing with social concerns, priests and pastors have played a pivotal role in shaping the opinions of their followers, and consequently the public.
Invariably, the questions were challenging and complex, often contradictory, forcing clergy to walk the fine line of balancing changing social ideologies with the doctrines of their particular theology. As society grows more complex, the balancing act becomes evermore difficult. Such is the world today. As political rhetoric heats up and more people become disinfrancished with the increasingly divided government, the questions from congregants has increased and many churches find themselves having to take stronger stances on almost every issue possible, often with divisive results.
The issue of illegal immigration is particularly challenging for Christian religions and leaders in the United States. Many support the need to obey the law of the land. Jesus himself seemed unconcerned with political issues, rendering to Caesar that which was his. Luther and Calvin (and, subsequently the majority of their followers) supported the “sword” of government and the laws they established; most churches continue in that vein, supporting a separation from outward influences.
However, with around 90% of South and Central America claiming Christianity as their faith, and the majority of illegals coming from those regions, Church leaders have to consider their flocks. Scripture in the Bible specifically calls upon leader to not only to care for the believers, but commands them to treat a foreigner as a native, and many depend on their church not only spiritually but physically as well. Ultimately they’re faced with the question: are the laws of God stronger than the laws of the land?
It seems that most faiths have decided yes. And they are making that very clear. Several Catholic Dioceses have released statements, while the First Southern Baptists, The United Methodists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and many others have all taken a stand as well. More important than the open letters and statements released, all the aforementioned churches are taking an active role in practicing the ideologies they preach. Over the next few weeks, various aspects of religion’s role in the immigration debate will be presented, beginning with the growing rift between the leaders and their congregations.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Power of the Pulpit, Religion