To live together in social communities, people create and maintain expectations about what is normal and what is not. Sometimes things can fall outside the range of normal and people are OK with it. You might have a neighbor who likes to wear Revolutionary War-era costumes on their evening walks around the neighborhood. Their behavior seems weird to you, but you consider it an instance of everyone's freedom to express themselves.
Author
- Jen Cole Wright
Professor of Psychology, College of Charleston
But other times something seems not only abnormal but also unacceptable. In this case, people take active steps to squelch what feels unfair, inappropriate, bad or deviant. Things that people think are morally abnormal - aberrant behavior, transgressions, violations of their most sacred values - are viewed as highly threatening and necessary to shut down, with force if necessary. Most people would find a neighbor who purposefully starves and tortures their dogs morally repugnant. That neighbor would need to be stopped and would deserve to be punished.
A decade of research in my psychology lab and others' demonstrates that people struggle to express tolerance for different moral values - for instance, about sexual orientation, helping the poor, being a stay-at-home mother and so on.
In study after study, people are less willing to help, share with, date, be roommates with and even work for people who have different moral values. Even children and adolescents express more willingness to shun and punish moral transgressors than people who do something personally obnoxious or offensive but not immoral.
When asked to talk with a stranger who they know disagrees with them, people will turn their bodies away more and move farther away when the disagreement involves a moral rather than personal disagreement. And they are more willing to condone using violence against someone who doesn't share their morals.
All this sounds like bad news for societies like ours filled with people who hold diverse moral values. But there is an important counterbalance to this blanket intolerance. When people sense disagreement within their community about moral issues - even those they personally feel strongly about - it pushes them to have tolerance for people with other views .
In other words, when it is clear that people you see as your peers - members of your community - disagree with each other, you recognize the need for continued respectful discussion. It automatically tones down the natural tendency toward intolerance for moral views that differ from your own.
Splintering off into polarized groups
While perceived disagreement within a community appears to function as a corrective to intolerance, the opposite is also true: Consensus is a powerful trigger of intolerance. When most of the community agrees that something is morally bad, then those who disagree are viewed as outliers and labeled as "deviant." Intolerance becomes not only justified but is seen as necessary.
But how is consensus reached? In diverse, democratic societies like ours − where people are allowed to form their own opinions − there are two ways this might happen.
The democratic ideal is that over time, through shared discussion and reflection, people eventually come to an agreement or compromise . Once a sense of consensus - or close enough - has been reached, group members can be confident that those who continue to disagree can be safely ignored or no longer tolerated.
More often, though, consensus is achieved when the disagreement becomes strong enough to fracture communities into multiple, smaller "issue-position" groups. Here's an example.
Consider a controversial issue, such as abortion. Two people may agree that terminating a pregnancy is something that causes harm but also falls within women's reproductive autonomy. Yet, at the same time, they may disagree - one prioritizes discouraging abortions whenever possible, while the other prioritizes the freedom to make that choice.
Over time, the two people encounter others whose views are more extreme. Because the two resonate more with different sides of the issue, they find themselves pulled in opposite directions, eventually becoming more at odds with each other.
At the community level, when more extreme views grow strong enough and gain enough traction with enough people, it activates new group identities. Where once there was a community of people who disagreed with one another about abortion, there are now two smaller, distinct and separate communities of pro-lifers and pro-choicers.
What is problematic is that issue-position groups, by definition, create consensus, signaling to their members that they, and not the other group, have got things right.
Civility toward the other side is no longer required: The other viewpoint, and anyone who holds it, is considered morally wrong. Intolerance, though, can become a moral mandate. Members of issue-position groups often find themselves on a moral crusade against the other side .
Extreme identities in opposition
Unfortunately, this type of group-driven consensus is increasingly common .
One prominent example in the United States is that people are more likely than they were in the past to experience politics as not just about disagreement on various political values and approaches to governance but as opposing groups. Being liberal or conservative is an identity that puts one group in opposition to the other . And only one side can be "right" and "moral."
At least in these group-identity-fueled contexts, people can lose sight of the fact that they are all Americans, even going so far as to assert that their smaller group represents the only "true" or "real" Americans .
The proliferation of issue-position groups is made easier by the ability to quickly find and connect with people who share your views via the internet and social media. Many Americans don't actively participate in civic life within the larger groups they're a part of, such as their neighborhood or city, where they would naturally encounter a diversity of opinions. People have less practice sharing their views and making room for those who disagree.
In contrast, it's easy, especially online, to find like-minded communities to join and feel validated. This is made even easier by the algorithms employed by search engines and social media apps that prioritize showing content that reflects and reinforces your beliefs , values, activities and practices and shields you from those who are different - unless presenting them as things to disparage and hate.
This process can accelerate movement toward extreme issue-position groups and identities. As online algorithms begin taking people down different paths , the likelihood that they will find themselves ultimately with more extreme attitudes becomes more probable and more rapidly accomplished.
Reengaging with your broader communities
How can people combat this dangerous trend?
For one, you can get off social media and back into your communities, welcoming opportunities to interact with the complex diversity they contain. And even when online, you can take intentional steps to " burst" the alogrithms , actively finding ways to connect with people who are not like you and ideas with which you may not agree.
Most importantly, you can always take a step back from the impulse toward intolerance and humbly remember our shared humanity. Even looking into another's eyes without words can activate compassion and remind you that we are all ultimately members of the same global community.
Jen Cole Wright is affiliated with the Charleston Climate Coalition, a 501c3 that advocates for a livable climate in the Lowcountry.
