An expected function of difference is fragmentation,
which in our society today is seen as polarization,
which results in the “excluded middle” and so leaves us with a the resulting “polarization of a divided nation.”
This structural projection of “polarization” promotes the marginalization of those people who believe they have different, possibly unique, perspectives.
In all likelihood, they would not want to align with the perspectives on the “poles,”
The way in which the perception of the structure has been biased, we have been cut off from the engagement of the full spectrum. That is, “We The People,” who make up the society, have been cut off from their engagement. They encounter the structural impairment to their engagement. We have been left with a mindset afforded by two spotlights, each one illuminating one pole.
At one pole (A), are those we perceive as not positioned to ever impact.
At the other pole (B), are those we consider to be firmly aligned with our perspective.
Neither side is motivated toward constituent engagement – certainly not communal discourse.
In this perceptive, the vast majority of the constituents are no longer known nor deemed to be accessible to us. It becomes our conviction that we lack the capacity to influence a single one of their votes.
That is, the voter who is Black or female, or gay or Jewish, is only percieved as reflected in either the (A) or (B) pole. Therefore, we only express the attitudes of those who are Black, female, gay, or Jewish as (A) or (B). This results in influencing the votes of individuals within the full spectrum and in generating the perception of the attitudes of all Blacks, females, gays, or Jews.
An individual we is struggling with their vote, who fits any of these demographics, has their decision influenced by (a) the perceived values of their peers, (b) their need to maintain their acceptance among their peers, and (c) a lack of issues based on options from throughout the full spectrum of the diverse perspectives within the society.
Again, the limit to SpectrumEngagement, because of the structural impairment, has framed barriers for them to engagement which reflects their convictions as an individual.
Every four years, a presidential election may attract their vote – if the stakes are high enough, or if a candidate reflects their personal perspective, not necessarily that assigned to their demographic. The greater option is to stay quietly unengaged – unmotivated or uncertain.
Today, almost exclusively, there are those who seek to “bridge the divide” and “address our divided nation.” They will initiate or augment program based strategies (a) promoting “discourse” by bringing together speakers who reflect different “poles” to demonstrate how we can model a civic discussion and “bridge the divide.” This further reinforces the polarized model. What is further modeled on the stage is the excluded middle within the scope of the full spectrum, even if presented by simply adding one black or women or gay or Jew.
The outcome is an audience who hopes one side will overpower the other sides and eliminating the divide by bringing everyone to their side.
This model still lacks multiple arenas, designed or ad hoc, in which a range of random thoughts on issues which affect our personal well-being, and our society, are expressed, shared and perspectives exchanged. These conversations are part of a flow of communal discourse.
These exchanges enable us to acquire wisdom from people who share complex identities, as most of us do. Not necessarily my same complex identities, but within their individual identities and their personal experiences and their philosophy of life, might be some combination of perspectives that correlates with my shared uncertainty on an issue.
As a wide ranging diversity of constituents in our gatherings, we converse about an issue and share perspectives with a commitment to finding directions which encompass the greatest share of the perspectives of “others.”
What’s Next: The Transformation Interrupted – Or Not