By admin 
When the Merriam-Webster Dictionary announced their 2024 Word of the Year – “polarization” – our team at the National Conflict Resolution Center wasn’t a little surprised. After all, it’s been a busy year for us: companies, universities, and nonprofits across the United States have been in touch, looking for tools and strategies to circumvent deepening polarization.
The 2024 presidential elections have only intensified the polarization phenomenon. As Anna Furman of The Associated Press wrote, many Americans went to the polls out of fear of the opposing candidate. According to AP VoteCast (a survey of more than 120,000 voters), about 8 in 10 Kamala Harris voters were somewhat or very concerned that Donald Trump’s views were too extreme; Seven in 10 Trump voters felt the same way about Harris.
Merriam-Webster chooses its word of the year based on page views and tracks an increase in searches and usage. It defines polarization as “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially a condition in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer extend along a continuum, but concentrate at opposite extremes.”
Historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote last week about the use of polarization as a political tool. In 1970, she said, the Republican Party was concerned about voter sentiment after President Richard Nixon’s decision to send ground troops to Cambodia rather than end the war in Vietnam.
In the protests that followed, members of the Ohio National Guard shot into a crowd at Kent State University, killing four people. According to Cox Richardson, Nixon lost the support of white, middle-class Americans – a key demographic group – when he claimed that the protesters were responsible for the shooting. To get the vote for Nixon, his advisers used a strategy they called “positive polarization,” calling their opponents “lazy, dangerous and anti-American” and stoking anger.
We don’t have to succumb to the idea of polarization. It is not inevitable, apart from historical precedent. Each of us has the power to change the dynamic by changing the way we act – even just a little bit. Polarization only works if there are enough willing participants.
So here’s my gift to you: five ways you can contribute to a less polarized 2025:
Demonstrate ‘conversational receptivity’. Scientific American coined this phrase to indicate the extent to which people who disagree communicate a willingness to interact with each other. It means using language that indicates your genuine interest in someone else’s perspective. Instead of trying to score points or change minds, seek understanding. (Ironically, if you seem more receptive in conversation, you’re actually more persuasive, as parents of teens know.)
Check your bias. Polarization is fueled by prejudices that limit our thinking. Deeply held beliefs about people on the ‘other side’ are often wrong. When you overestimate the differences – and conclude that your side is better than the other – you are only adding to the toxic stew, perhaps without even realizing it. On the other side of the bias coin, we naturally prefer people who are like us and believe in their perspectives. It may be comfortable, but it is imperfect, because each of us is multidimensional.
Remember our shared humanity. If you disagree, you can find compromise and common ground, even if it seems elusive at first. (That premise is at the heart of the mediation work we’ve been doing at NCRC for more than forty years.) Humility helps, too. I remember my conversation a few years ago with bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur Brooks, after the publication of his book “Love Your Enemies.” He spoke of our “culture of contempt” – the habit of viewing people who disagree with us as worthless and defective, not just wrong. The ‘more alike than different’ thinking can reduce polarization.
Limit your social media habit. Social media has become a polarization accelerator – especially because it can stir up animus between people who disagree politically. As Christian Staal Bruun Overgaard and Samuel Woolley of the Brookings Institution wrote, this “affective” polarization, as it is called, “threatens to undermine democracy itself” and underlies partisan impasses on everything from vaccine policy to climate change. The average American over the age of 16 spends two hours a day on social media, yet half of us feel time-poor. Curbing your social media habit has two benefits.
Get out of your bubble. These tips will only contribute to change if you choose to interact with people whose beliefs and core values differ from yours. Lean on disagreement, which is part of our social fabric. Commit to interacting with people who think differently in 2025, before the fear of holidays rears its ugly head again.
The word of the year is a sign of our times. My wish for the country is less polarization and more ‘w00t’, the word of the year 2007. It is an expression of joy.
Steven P. Dinkin is president of the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC), a San Diego-based organization that works to create innovative solutions to challenging issues, including bigotry and incivility. For more information about NCRC programming, visit www.ncrconline.com.
Originally published: December 29, 2024 at 5:00 AM PST