Beyond Polarization

We had waited a long time for this event to actually take place other than in our imaginations.  As part of a group sponsoring a public conversation named "Beyond Polarization", we were excited.  Some would say that no time in U.S. history has the population been more polarized.  I'm not sure where the years surrounding the Civil War, the long divisions over slavery, or possibly the Vietnam War fit in here.  Those were pretty divided times.  Some lasting effects of all of those divisions seems to have survived.  So to proclaim our time as the most polarized may be a stretch.  Last evening, the "Beyond Polarization" conversation began with a short presentation of charts and graphs and numbers which suggest that if polarization is pointing to hard line separation,  our divisions are serious.  And they will be there after the elections this November.  They may even become wider and deeper.  Welcome to the doomsday scenario.   Somebody is clearly out to get us (I don't know how to put a smiley face at the end of this comment.)  The planning team's wait has been dominated by our hope that of the twenty people we expected that the divide in our country would be represented.  Thankfully our hope was accompanied by some very hard work by the event coordinator--the work of one-on-one conversations, of approaching groups and individuals from across the political spectrum.  Of the twenty, I had five in a small group for which I provided facilitation of discussion of the experience and meaning of 'polarization.'  That was typical of the four small groups.  We had succeeded in the recruitment phase. By guiding a 'neutral' facilitation method, I sat on my emotions as the group introduced their Tea Party, Libertarian, Independent choices.   Not one claimed either of the two dominant parties. But FINALLY we had the opportunity to explore polarization with real people with very different points of view. We had racial, gender, and age mixes--not anyone really younger than 40.  The conversation was certainly civil and passionate. Emotions and strong feelings or definite opinions weren't spared, but were shared with respect.  The issues of concern were local and national.  The key agreement among the group is that information comes at us at lightning speed and we have limited tools to evaluate the facts.  Information is more likely heard as support or opposition of a point of view we already hold.  The relationship to the sources of information are not built on trust and there is a sense that someone else is controlling the game for their own purposes.  We hope to follow up with this task.  I have done similar groups, with less opposing views, however, for many years.  I am always a little frustrated by the lack of resolution or sense of a common commitment.  The participants are courageous and insightful regardless of their persuasion.  We avoid 'next step' talk because we don't have a program or a vehicle to channel the energy.  We only now how to work together when we agree.  What is it that we can agree upon that will focus the energy and passion we have for overcoming the great divide that we live in?  Is it citizenship as Parker Palmer suggests?  I like that.  How do we insert that into the conversation process without circumventing the necessary discovery and sharing of our own experience that has led us to this point?  Perhaps that is the heart of the matter!