Pattern of the whole
Remember me?
Join us | Get your password | Vision | Topics | Home

Join us | Topics | Home | Collaborative Backbone | Quotes | Teilhard deChardin | Focalpoint | Shared Purpose | NCDD Transpartisan | Mapping | Circle | Pattern

All messages

Sender: John Eley
Subject: Re: Why Partyism is Wrong
Date: Sat, Nov 15, 2014
Msg: 101161

I wonder if we are seeking something basic at work in increasing partyism in the form of a redirection of our innate tendency to separate ourselves from others that are clearly not like us from the social arena to the political arena produced by a significant decrease in out ability to express our disdain for others in social settings as a means for expressing our identity. I think that this idea was floated by Manuel Castells some years ago. Is it the case that the inability of our social system to tolerate expressions of disdain for others and its replacement by what we incorrectly term "political correctness" has led naturally to the rise of partyism. If we cannot express our intolerant views in polite society we are forced to express them in partisan divisions and /us vs them/ language. In short the normal and natural expressions of intolerance and division that was freely expressed in society is now allowed only in the political arena where is it much more destructive and divisive than it was in the complex and diverse society which allowed many venues for the expression of intolerance. As universities, the media and even churches have become more monological politics must of necessity become more polarized as it becomes the only acceptable outlet for negative expressions within the elites.

I have no empirical evidence to support this view, but I offer it as a working hypothesis. I wonder if anyone thinks that this has any merit and any support in the literature. If my guess is correct we are now in very dangerous territory because the ability to govern effectively in a diverse society is now threatened.

I would very much appreciate some feedback on this half baked theory.

John Eley Independent Consultant Nashville, TN 615-429-7643

On 11/3/14 11:27 AM, Ted Celeste wrote: > Thanks, Deb and Mark. David Brooks has pointed out a huge issue within > our political arena - "To compromise is to betray your very identity". > If we are to change that misconception, then it begins with each of us > knowing who we really are, where we came from and where we are headed. > With that firm understanding, we then can begin to explore the origins > of others around us - our family, friends and colleagues and what > makes them who they are. Real communication built on trust and respect > can lead to a better and more productive political culture. Our > organization, Next Generation, a project of the National Institute for > Civil Discourse, is facilitating workshops for state legislators > around the country to "Build Trust through Civil Discourse", and I am > encouraged by the number of legislators who are committed to that > cultural change. > > I look forward to exploring with others on this list-serve ways that > we can help move the dial away from political dysfunction and > hyper-partisanship. > > Ted Celeste > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Debilyn Molineaux > > wrote: > > On behalf of Mark Gerzon > > Why Partyism Is Wrong > OCT. 27, 2014 > David Brooks > > A college student came to me recently with a quandary. He'd spent > the summer interning at a conservative think tank. Now he was > applying to schools and companies where most people were liberal. > Should he remove the internship from his résumé? > > I advised him not to. Even if people disagreed with his politics, > I argued, they'd still appreciate his public spiritedness. But now > I'm thinking that advice was wrong. There's a lot more political > discrimination than I thought. In fact, the best recent research > suggests that there's more political discrimination than there is > racial discrimination. > > For example, political scientists Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood > gave 1,000 people student résumés and asked them which students > should get scholarships. The résumés had some racial cues > (membership in African-American Students Association) and some > political cues (member of Young Republicans). > > Race influenced decisions. Blacks favored black students 73 > percent to 27 percent, and whites favored black students slightly. > But political cues were more powerful. Both Democrats and > Republicans favored students who agreed with them 80 percent of > the time. They favored students from their party even when other > students had better credentials. > > Iyengar and Westwood conducted other experiments to measure what > Cass Sunstein of Harvard Law School calls "partyism." They gave > subjects implicit association tests, which measure whether people > associate different qualities with positive or negative emotions. > They had people play the trust game, which measures how much > people are willing to trust different kinds of people. > > In those situations, they found pervasive prejudice. And political > biases were stronger than their racial biases. > > In a Bloomberg View column last month, Sunstein pointed to polling > data that captured the same phenomenon. In 1960, roughly 5 percent > of Republicans and Democrats said they'd be "displeased" if their > child married someone from the other party. By 2010, 49 percent of > Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats said they would mind. > > Politics is obviously a passionate activity, in which moral values > clash. Debates over Obamacare, charter schools or whether the > United States should intervene in Syria stir serious disagreement. > But these studies are measuring something different. People's > essential worth is being measured by a political label: whether > they should be hired, married, trusted or discriminated against. > > The broad social phenomenon is that as personal life is being > de-moralized, political life is being hyper-moralized. People are > less judgmental about different lifestyles, but they are more > judgmental about policy labels. > > The features of the hyper-moralized mind-set are all around. More > people are building their communal and social identities around > political labels. Your political label becomes the prerequisite > for membership in your social set. > > Politics becomes a marker for basic decency. Those who are not > members of the right party are deemed to lack basic compassion, or > basic loyalty to country. > > Finally, political issues are no longer just about themselves; > they are symbols of worth and dignity. When many rural people > defend gun rights, they're defending the dignity and respect of > rural values against urban snobbery. > > There are several reasons politics has become hyper-moralized in > this way. First, straight moral discussion has atrophied. There > used to be public theologians and philosophers who discussed moral > issues directly. That kind of public intellectual is no longer > prominent, so moral discussion is now done under the guise of > policy disagreement, often by political talk-show hosts. > > Second, highly educated people are more likely to define > themselves by what they believe than by their family religion, > ethnic identity or region. > > Third, political campaigns and media provocateurs build loyalty by > spreading the message that electoral disputes are not about > whether the top tax rate will be 36 percent or 39 percent, but are > about the existential fabric of life itself. > > The problem is that hyper-moralization destroys politics. Most of > the time, politics is a battle between competing interests or an > attempt to balance partial truths. But in this fervent state, it > turns into a Manichaean struggle of light and darkness. To > compromise is to betray your very identity. When schools, > community groups and workplaces get defined by political > membership, when speakers get disinvited from campus because they > are beyond the pale, then every community gets dumber because they > can't reap the benefits of diverging viewpoints and competing thought. > > This mentality also ruins human interaction. There is a tremendous > variety of human beings within each political party. To judge > human beings on political labels is to deny and ignore what is > most important about them. It is to profoundly devalue them. That > is the core sin of prejudice, whether it is racism or partyism. > > The personal is not political. If you're judging a potential > daughter-in-law on political grounds, your values are out of whack. > > > -- > Mark Gerzon > Mediators Foundation > 2525 Arapahoe Avenue E-4 #509 > Boulder, Colorado 80302 > 3038171409 > > "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created > them." - Albert Einstein > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: > write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > > or click the following link: > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > > >


To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link:

Anger and partisan rage
Attention Economy
Basic principles for a Transpartisan movement
Collaborative problem solving
Common ground
Community conversations
Conscious business
Creating transpartisan consensus
Crisis of democracy
Dynamic Facilitation
Facilitated conversation/dialogue
For transpartisanism to be successful, people must transform their most basic beliefs
Holding the tension of our differences while working together with respect and an open heart
Integral democracy
Integral politics
Integral thinking
Internet support for dialog and action
Out of Many, One - E Pluribus Unum
Partisan bubbles
Partisan disfunction
Political revolution
Psychological overload
Public choice economics
Science and accurate thinking
Stratified Democracy
Teleology and cultural evolution
Transpartisan alliance on specific issue
Uninvolved citizen
Unity and diversity
Unprecedented new approaches
Us versus Them
Voter ignorance
Weave together a movement of many initiatives
What is "transpartisan"?
Wisdom Council
Wisdom in society
Work together to create an activist vision