Our society is fractured. We all feel it. It takes little to sever a friendship these days. Even marriages and families are falling apart due to our division. Has it always been this way? Is there a way out? How do we mend the deep rifts in our society? Most of us are dissatisfied with the status quo but have no clue where to even begin.
It starts with dignity. It must if we are to heal the wounds of division. We lament our polarization, but the oft-blamed causes are misplaced. It is not disagreement that’s the problem. Disagreement is healthy. The problem lies in our failure to treat every human with dignity, even those with whom we disagree strongly about the most fundamental issues.
Treating humans with dignity does not require agreement. It does not require us to think all of their beliefs or values have credence or are defensible. What we need to do is value other humans because they are no less valuable than we are. Almost nothing else matters. Whether we like it or not, we are all part of the same society even if we wish not to be. Moreover, our actions and behaviors contribute to that society. This leads us to the realization that we all contribute to the tone and tenor of societal discourse and even to other people’s views and values. If we hate half of our own society, we must ask whether we hate what our half has contributed to making society what it is. In other words, hating half of society means hating ourselves in some way. This most fundamental point should make us question our bias and hatred even if it doesn’t rid us of them.
At this point, many people start the what ifs and what abouts. What if someone is a murderer? What if someone is a pedophile? What about Nazis? There are at least two ways to answer these questions. The first is most people who ask these questions do not solely train their bitterness and hate against these groups. Do they only withhold dignity from murderers, pedophiles, and Nazis? Our experience tells us this is far from the case. We fail to treat people with dignity if they disagree with us about such issues as economic policy, gun laws, abortion, and universal healthcare. We can’t rationally believe that those with whom we disagree about these issues are no different than murderers, pedophiles, and Nazis. And yet, we do.
Is this the bar for dignity? Are only those who agree with my politics worthy of it?
I think not. But there is something more fundamental. Some level of dignity should be afforded to everyone. This is why our society has settled on fair trials for all and the concept of cruel and unusual punishment. There is a level of depravity we cannot justify even if inflicted on the vilest among us. Deep down, we know there are circumstances that contribute to what people became. In the case of the pedophile, they are wired with deviant sexual desires. This does not excuse their behavior or remove the necessity of keeping society safe from them. It is, however, a reminder to treat these people with basic human dignity and to find humane ways to keep them from harming society.
Let’s return to what ails society. We are deeply divided, but mostly on just a handful of hot topics. Gun laws, abortion, economic regulation, tax policy, healthcare, immigration, criminal justice, transgender issues, and race relations are among the most prominent and contentious. Whatever our positions, reason would not consign those who oppose us to the ranks of murderers, pedophiles, or Nazis. Moreover, how could we reconcile such an extreme judgment with the fact that tens of millions of our fellow citizens disagree with us?
Yet, we often diminish those with whom we disagree in ways that deprive them of their dignity. We demonize the opposition or we strip people of their dignity by assuming anyone with whom we disagree is either stupid or ignorant. The latter seems kinder but it is another way of devaluing people. It assumes they are not even worthy of contributing to the conversation. It may be the cruelest and most demeaning way of stripping someone of their dignity.
Polarization does not flow from the disagreements themselves. Our disagreements are not new. Yet, polls show we are judging each other more unfavorably, particularly when it comes to politics. If the issues are unchanged, it is hard to argue the issues are what divide us. The problem is we believe those who don’t think as we do are not worthy of basic human dignity.
Previous generations did this better. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia couldn’t have been further apart in their politics or interpretations of the Constitution and the law. Yet that did not prevent them from bonding over wine, food, and opera. Even their children became friends. Scalia once remarked about Ginsberg “What’s not to like… except her views of the law, of course?” Scalia and Ginsberg were the best of friends.
A similar lesson can be learned from Presidents Carter and Reagan, political opponents with radically different visions for America. Still, there was mutual respect between them. Reagan was invited to the opening of the Carter Presidential Center in 1986. He not only accepted the invitation but gave the opening remarks and said the following. "None of us today need feel any urge, in the name of good will, to downplay our differences. On the contrary, in a certain sense we can be proud of our differences, because they arise from good will itself---for love of country; for concern for the challenges of our time; from respect for, and yes, even outright enjoyment of, the democratic processes of disagreement and debate." Our differences… arise from good will itself. Imagine we never changed anyone’s mind but just kept this one idea top of mind at all times. What would our society look like?
How much would be gained with the initial assumption that everyone deserves basic human dignity?
Beginning our approach to others with dignity avoids the corrosive effect of viewing half the population as subhuman. How does it affect us to walk around with fear and contempt for half of our fellow citizens? How do we remain hopeful when we think the world is populated with so many evil people? How do we have any trust at all in strangers, something so necessary for societies to function? Perhaps most importantly, what kind of slippery slopes do such beliefs lead to? We gain so much by flipping the dignity default switch to the on position.
A second practical aspect of the dignity-first approach is it allows us to converse more easily with those with whom we disagree. Unless we believe we already have only correct beliefs, we should welcome disagreement. Contrary positions allow us to reshape our own or to change them over time. Either way, we gain from interacting with alternate viewpoints.
The issues humanity faces today are more complex than they’ve ever been. They arose from the miraculous technologies that fostered enough peace and sustenance to grow the human population to over 8 billion people. The results are breathtaking, and there are diverse opinions about how to solve our challenges. We risk focusing so much on the complexity of the problems that we forget the simplest things. To solve these complex problems, we must begin with the simplest of solutions, and that is to begin all human relationships and interactions with a basic premise—dignity first.