Given the recent rise and increased intensity of political polarization in the United States, how are we to engage in public discourse?¹ If, as political theorists have argued, the norms that once governed political discourse are no longer respected and utilized,² if “facts” differ according to one’s political lens, if polarization renders agreement a seeming impossibility, is it even reasonable to expect those who differ to be able to talk with one another?³ Was Richard Rorty’s provocation that violence seems to be the only way to deal with intractable political differences in fact a prophecy?⁴ This book argues that where polarization is predominant, traditional forms of rational argumentation and reason-based persuasion will likely prove impossible. But that does not mean we need to “reach for our guns” and give up on civic discourse all together.⁵ Instead, we need to utilize a form of discourse that is specifically tailored to reducing polarization by first building trust and creating mutual understanding .

I will define polarization as a circular process involving three features.⁶ First, polarization pertains to how we think about the other’s identities. Polarization feeds off of how we conceptualize the other, particularly how we interpret and privilege their various identities.⁷ More specifically, polarization occurs when we privilege identities that differ and downplay or ignore identities we share with the other. One’s neighbor might hold similar political ideals, but if one refuses to talk with them because they are not of the same ethnicity or religion, then polarization is more likely to ensue. Polarization, though, is not just noticing difference, nor is it even fearing difference. One could, for example, fear the other but acknowledge that those fears are unfounded and work to open oneself to listening to the other. Second, then, polarization occurs when a fear born of difference transforms into “us-versus-them” thinking. Polarization does not refer to difference per se—that is, where issue difference is easily captured by polling data.⁸ Pluralism is healthy for a democracy, polarization is not. For, when one is caught in us-versus-them thinking, one believes that the other’s identity is the source of the other’s alleged moral degeneration, dangerousness, stupidity, craziness, or evilness. Third, polarization entails the belief that rational and productive dialogue and interaction are impossible or fruitless. The result is avoidance, silencing, increased aggression, or violence. Rather than seeking to understand difference, polarization shuts down the desire to communicate and often fuels hostile speech and actions. Polarization disrupts habits of civic discourse not by creating difference but by exacerbating it. In other words, polarization occurs when fear of certain identity-based difference leads to avoidance, and avoidance leads to hostile stereotypes that result in “us-versus-them” thinking. Once “us-versus-them” thinking has been established, there is usually little desire to even try to dialogue with the other side. The excessive focus on identity difference that translates into a stark us-versus-them thought process and leaves one feeling that engagement with the other is fruitless captures the essence of polarization referenced throughout this book.

This account of polarization is in line with the way conflict transformation experts describe it as undermining “trust and respect” to such a degree that “distorted perceptions and simplified stereotypes emerge” (Fisher and Keashly 1990, 236–237). If one does not trust the other, one will not be open to listening to the other and the discourse that emerges will be acrimonious and fueled by hostile stereotypes. Polarized communities either lack all motivation to engage in political discussion with the other side or, if they do manage to interact, they find the communication marred by antagonism and hostility. By inviting violence rather than discourse, polarization functions as (one of) the cause(s) of the lack of facility for and interest in cogent rational argumentation, as well as the tendency to reject facts offered by one’s opponents. As Kenneth Gergen describes such encounters: “to deliberate, or to argue with the opposition is, in this sense, not likely to yield understanding, for each side will locate a means to sustain the ‘evil’ of the other” (Gergen 1994, 271). Even in his book that defends the importance of sound argumentation for improving public life, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong acknowledges that “arguments do little good when the audience is not receptive…” (Sinnott-Armstrong 2018, 7). In other words, if we are going to motivate civic discourse in polarized times we must first figure out a way to build trust and cultivate the desire to communicate across difference. According to those who research conflict, we need a form of discourse that prioritizes “relationship building” over engaging in traditional forms of political persuasion and argumentation (Pruitt and Kugler 2014, 1100).

This book presents what I am calling “civic dialogue” as a form of discourse that helps establish trust with, and thus increases our receptivity to, the other. Civic dialogue is a means for motivating and encouraging community members to discursively engage with others so as to attenuate polarization. While the nature of civic life requires forms of persuasion and argument that eventually must produce policy decision, dialogue serves as a form of discourse that makes such political persuasion possible and, indeed, more productive. Civic dialogue, then, can help create and sustain democratic, pluralistic communities. While the aim of this book is to clarify a model of dialogue that proves a powerful form of civic discourse that has a potential to address polarization, let me offer a brief introduction to what I mean by dialogue.

Analogous to Plato’s insistence that the goal of education is not simply a process of pouring knowledge into passive minds but is one that requires the struggle to re-orient...