That’s enough. In today’s world, division seems to be the norm. We have become increasingly adept at blaming, whether it be political ideology, social justice arguments, or cultural differences. We fall into black-and-white thinking, believing that our own perspective is morally superior while ignoring the nuances of other people’s experiences.
Responsibility has become the currency of engagement, and we often spend it lavishly without considering the cost. Across social and political lines, we see the same pattern. That is, blame and ridicule with a lack of responsibility and little introspection.
What is missing from these discussions is that both sides are actually exhibiting similar behaviors, and these behaviors, whether left or right, up or down, do not promote unification but instead serve as two-sided action. The understanding is that this is reinforcing polarization.
cycle of blame and criticism
Blaming is rampant in contemporary discourse. Whether it’s accusations of racism, sexism, or economic inequality, we often reduce complex social issues to black-and-white judgments. This process, known as dichotomous thinking, promotes the idea that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong (Haidt, 2012). Although criticism can sometimes be constructive, research shows that it often creates entrenched positions, furthers divisions, and undermines empathy (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008).
Indeed, while criticism may feel cathartic in the short term, psychological research suggests that criticism tends to reinforce negative thought patterns and reduce trust and cooperation between groups. (Fredrickson, 2001). Instead of fostering solutions, this “us vs. them” mentality perpetuates social divisions and makes it even harder to find common ground. The time has come for progressives and conservatives alike to move beyond blame and seek common understanding.
Selective sympathy: a double-edged sword
One of the most prominent aspects of today’s political divisions is selective sympathy, the act of offering sympathy or support to certain groups or movements while ignoring others. For example, progressives often express a deep commitment to social justice and human rights, but this compassion often leads them to believe that they are “privileged”, such as working-class people and people with traditional values. Sometimes we overlook the struggles of individuals and communities who recognize that they are living in poverty. Conversely, conservatives may rally around economic concerns or the preservation of cultural traditions, but may be less likely to address issues such as racial inequality or environmental justice.
This selective empathy undermines efforts to bridge the gap between different ideologies and creates a culture of moral exclusion where the struggles of one group are prioritized over those of another. Psychological research on moral psychology suggests that to build trust and cooperation, we must be able to extend our empathy across ideological boundaries, even if we don’t fully agree with the other person’s views. (Gray, 2013). Without this broader, more inclusive empathy, the cycle of polarization will continue.
The dangers of thinking in black and white
Black-and-white thinking is at the heart of many conflicts. In this way of thinking, issues are framed in clear terms of right and wrong, good and evil. Although this approach may make complex problems appear simple, it overlooks the nuances and complexities of real-world problems. Polarization (each side seeing itself as morally right and the opposing side as morally flawed) leads to entrenched positions that stifle productive conversation (Haidt, 2012).
In contrast, shades of gray thinking encourages us to enjoy different perspectives and appreciate the complexity of political, social, and even personal issues. Political psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2012) argues that moral judgments are rarely clear-cut, and that engaging with others thoughtfully and respectfully, recognizing that both parties have legitimate concerns, It claims to help open the door to constructive ways of thinking beyond dualistic thinking. Dialogue.
Two sides of the same coin: unbalanced brutality
Interestingly, both parties share common deficiencies in their approaches to dealing with the issue. Again using the political lens as an example, progressives may promote social justice in a way that alienates people with different views, while conservatives may seek to maintain traditional values. They may prioritize policies that ignore broader human rights issues. Both sides are guilty of virtue signaling, cancel culture, and unwillingness to compromise, all of which undermine the possibility of finding common ground.
To break this cycle, we need to embrace moral humility. that is, the recognition that our own moral understanding may have limits and that we can learn from others with different perspectives (Haidt, 2012). When individuals on both sides practice this humility, they are more likely to have respectful and productive conversations rather than relying on judgment and blame.
Moving forward: The need for self-awareness and empathy
If we want to create more cohesive communities and societies, we must begin to engage in more self-reflection and self-awareness. All sides need to consider their own biases, prejudices, and blind spots. Rather than assuming that one side is morally superior, we need to recognize that each side has legitimate concerns and ideas, often with multiple perspectives.
Building empathy across political divides is not easy, but it is essential to fostering healthy and respectful conversations. Psychological flexibility, the ability to simultaneously hold contradictory ideas while maintaining an open mind, is a skill that helps bridge the gap (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2006). Practicing this flexibility in everyday conversations will gradually reduce polarization and foster cooperation.
Conclusion: A call for reflection and dialogue
It’s time to stop blaming and criticizing others and start asking, “What are we here to change?” Rather than perpetuating cycles of division, we should focus on how we can contribute to solving personal and societal problems in ways that respect the perspectives of others. This change requires a commitment to self-awareness, empathy, and the recognition that each side is part of a larger, more complex social fabric. By moving beyond blame and engaging in constructive and inclusive dialogue, we can create a society that values both individual expression and collective well-being.
