Outraged

Last week, just before we heard Jesus say, “Love your enemies,” I picked up a book from the library: Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground by Kurt Gray. I offer extended quotations below, for the sake of our shared calling of loving enemies.—PC

The argument of this book is simple: We have a harm-based moral mind. Our evolutionary past makes us worry about harm, but people today disagree about which threats are most important or most real, creating moral outrage and political disagreement. All people have the same human nature grounded in worries about ancient threats, and all people are concerned about the looming harm of modern threats. But while someone on the left might emphasize the threats of growing inequality between rich and poor, systemic racism, and the destruction of the environment, someone on the right might emphasize the threats of banning firearms, restricting religious freedoms, and destroying sacred national symbols.

The key point is that perceptions of harm on both sides are sincere, even if they don't immediately make sense to you. It is tempting to dismiss someone's feelings of threat as misguided or exaggerated, but studies show that our moral convictions are underlain by genuinely perceived harms. Once you empathize with people's perceptions of harm–often by learning about their experiences of suffering–you can better understand people on the other side.

Gray’s tips for finding common ground:

• Most people think facts best help bridge moral divides, but they do not. Facts give the wrong kind of truth for moral conversations, and in political arguments we disagree about which facts are true and relevant.
• A major driver of conflict is dehumanization. Seeing the other side as less than human–as irrational and invulnerable–licenses cruelty toward them. The best way to make each other seem fully human is by telling stories of harm. Not only do stories of harm resonate with our ancient harm-based minds, but worrying about avoiding harm makes us seem both rational and vulnerable.
• Studies find that stories of harm foster perceptions of rationality and respect across moral divides, whether on social media, on cable news, in op-eds, or in face-to-face conversations. Once stories of harm have created mutual understanding, facts can be useful.
• For our stories of harm to be effective, we must focus on using them for understanding, not for "winning" some debate. It is also important to listen to other people's stories of harm.
• There is a paradox of vulnerability. Opening up with stories of harm helps to bridge divides, but it is hard to open up to moral "opponents." This paradox can make us paralyzed at the crossroads of connection, torn between the power of sharing our suffering and the desire for self-protection.
• An expert at bridging divides, John Sarrouf from Essential Partners provides three lessons for connecting across differences. These lessons can be summarized with the acronym CIVil conversations.
• The c is for "connect." Before we talk politics, we must first connect on a human level. There are many ways to bond with people, including talking about shared hobbies or discussing your hopes and dreams. Asking many (deep) questions–especially follow-up questions–is a good way to build common ground, but the questions must be geared toward genuine understanding.
• The i is for "invite." Extending an invitation to others to share their perspective helps avoid reactance; no one likes being forced to be vulnerable. When asking someone for their thoughts and views, remember that "purpose is primary." You must emphasize that your goal for the conversation is understanding.
• The v is for "validate." When someone opens up to you, you must make them feel understood and valued. Validating is not agreeing, but authentically listening to someone. Try to "close the gap" between what they intended to say and how their words affected you. One good route to validating: acknowledging your shared desire for protection.