A Social Psychologist's Search for Purple America
Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer in Psychology, UWMC
November 5, 2004
The essence of dialogue is not that we relativize our convictions, but rather that we agree to accept one another as persons.
-- Martin Buber
A tale of two countries
Since the much-disputed election of 2000, it's become increasingly commonplace to speak of "two Americas": the Red America of the heartland, the Blue America of the bicoastal regions. According to many political pundits, we are now rapidly evolving into two separate societies that have such markedly different mindsets, and speak in such different languages, that no true consensus is possible. Many bemoan the polarization and balkanization of our once-unified nation, the movement toward a "take-no-prisoners", scorched-earth political process that runs the risk of putting an end to our once-thriving experiment in participatory democracy.
Are these fears justified? And if they are, to the extent that they are, what can ordinary Americans do about them?
The Red-Blue construct
The Red-Blue dichotomy is, without doubt, a vast oversimplification. At its worst, it takes on the negative features of a stereotype and becomes a convenient stick with which to beat one's political opponents. Empirical research to confirm or disconfirm the notion that the traits usually assigned to the Red or the Blue side actually cohere (correlationally) into distinct clusters is sadly lacking. Yet, at least anecdotally, there seems to be a grain of truth to the concept. It fits well with some established theories in social psychology such as the "normative vs. humanist" dichotomy.
In its usual form, the construct suggests a set of contrasts such as the following. Reds (it is suggested) are usually religious, perhaps excessively so; Blues, usually secularist if not antireligious, perhaps excessively so. (One commentator on MS-NBC recently summed up the political divide by suggesting that America is now divided into "those who value science versus those who value religion". As a person who is deeply committed to both -- the official motto of the University of Denver, where I received my undergraduate degree, is pro scientia et religione -- I found this deeply distressing at best.) Reds (to continue the stereotype) live in, or at least prefer, rural areas; Blues, urban ones. Reds prefer self-help and entrepreneurial, market-driven solutions to problems; Blues, government intervention and the notion of a collectivist (if not protosocialistic) "safety net". Reds like simplicity and black/white answers (which can degrade into charges of anti-intellectualism); Blues, complexity and nuanced shades of grey (which can lead to analysis paralysis or the dreaded charge of "flip-flopping"). Reds emphasize economic freedom but are comfortable with a high degree of control over issues of morality (emphasizing individual "righteousness"); Blues advocate autonomy regarding matters of (as they see them) "private" morality but are comfortable with collective regulation of economic issues (emphasizing collective "justice"). Reds are unilateralists, Blues multilateralists. And so it goes. The usual "litmus test" issues that become hot button issues during election cycles (abortion, gay marriage, gun control) are actually mere offshoots of a deeper philosophical divide.
By the above criteria, of course, many Americans cannot clearly identify themselves (or be rationally classified by others) as solidly Red or Blue. (I myself fall almost precisely in the middle of the Red-Blue continuum if the preceding indicators are taken as equally weighted in an algebraic formulation.) Yet, in the absence of a Purple Party candidate (sorry, but Ralph Nader doesn't qualify; Green, though a nice color, is more or less the opposite of Purple), voters of a Purple persuasion, unless they choose to opt out of the process entirely, find themselves in the awkward position of having to choose between, as a former professor of mine once put it, "the evil of two lessers".
We've been here before
It's important to note that the Red-Blue polarity is not only an ancient one in new guise, but that the very genius of our political system may be the explicit institutionalization of that dichotomy. Joseph Ellis (Founding Brothers) suggests that, while most revolutionary experiments end in a bloodbath, the American Revolution did not. In part, he argues, this is because the dialectic between two opposing views of what the Revolution was about were accommodated by the checks and balances of the Constitution and, later, in the emergence of the major political parties. In this way, the dispute could be safely channeled into institutional squabbles (benign transfers of power) and political compromises and negotiations. Occasionally (as during the Civil War era) the system nearly broke down, but for the most part it has held. Implicit in his work is the notion that both views of the American ideal are necessary and important as ideological counterweights to the potential excesses of the other. Left to its own devices, either Red or Blue America would metastasize into a thing of horror. Each side needs the other in an almost Jungian sense: the conscious, manifest force of one side is equally balanced by the unconscious, latent influence of the other. The two sides switch roles in an eternal struggle for ascendancy, but for the system to hold together, neither side can win altogether.
Despite this analysis, the polarities seem, to many, far more extreme than they have been in recent memory. There are at least three major reasons for this fact, if indeed it is a fact (some analysts think it is in part a creation of those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the differences among Americans).
First, a variety of changing political realities have likely exaggerated the normal polarities that have always existed within the American political landscape. As summarized by Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor, these factors include the influence of computer-aided gerrymandering, which incentivizes candidate pandering to the most extreme elements of their political base. As she notes, "[S]o many districts are now gerrymandered to be safe for one party that the election is essentially determined by the primary contest. One result: candidates tailor their messages to primary voters, who tend to have stronger ideological views... [W]inning elections is now increasingly about generating higher and higher turnout in each party's base" rather than reaching out to moderate, centrist voters. As a result, party affiliation is more closely aligned with underlying ideology than at any time in recent memory: gone are the conservative "Reagan Democrats" or analogous crossover Republican voters.
Second, the strong correlational link between
geography (including the urban-rural divide) and ideology virtually guarantees
that many people interact almost exclusively with those who share their
views. Joseph Berger of the New York Times notes that many New
Yorkers "said they didn't even know any people who had voted for
Third, we may be entering a time in history when cultural polarization is natural and expected. William Strauss and Neil Howe (The Fourth Turning) posit a complex but compelling model of cycles in history that suggests that, for better or worse, we are about where we could be expected to be in terms of "culture war" style social conflict. While their model is too complex to summarize in detail in this essay (for more information, see here), in a nutshell, they argue that history beats to the rhythm of an 80-100 year cycle they call the "saeculum". The saecular cycle involves distinct, predictable seasons, and we are nearing the end of that portion of the cycle they call the Unraveling. Previous Unraveling eras in American history have produced similar (often far worse) instances of cultural fragmentation, losses in civility and tolerance, increases in cultural stridency, and exacerbation of ideological polarities. (This is because, in their theory, all living members of the generational type that excels at process and nuance, the Adaptive generation, are either too old or too young to have any significant influence on the culture.) Seen in this light, the current trends are "nothing new under the sun", disturbing as they may be to those of us who (being less than a century old) are too young to remember what life was like in America the last time things were roughly as they are today.
The search for a Third Way
My own story is one of a search for a meaningful consensus between the Red and Blue extremes. Without delving into needless autobiographical elements that would serve no purpose other than to encourage identity theft and to cause some readers to stop halfway though this article, I not only can identify with the positive values of both Red and Blue America, but have many friends in both camps. My rather unique career path (academic by day, business consultant by night, as I like to put it) has cemented relationships on both sides. (Academia tends to be a Blue haven; the world of business, as well as the church circles I happen to inhabit by choice, are generally Red ones.) Thus, I have had the opportunity to listen to the reactions of both extreme Blues and extreme Reds to the outcome of the recent presidential election. If nothing else, this has convinced me that political reality is something of a Rorschach inkblot -- people see more or less what they expect to see -- and that both sides are desperately afraid of losing what they hold most dear. Purples like me have their work cut out for them, if we are to serve as any kind of meaningful bridge across the cultural divide! (Of course, building a bridge in the middle of an earthquake can be challenging work.)
I have long been influenced by the work of thinkers like Virginia Satir (a Blueish Purple and a very influential family systems theorist) and Os Guiness (a Reddish Purple and the author of the impressive historicocultural analysis The Dust of Death), both of whom argue forcefully in favor of a cultural Third Way. "A person is only free," writes Satir, "when she has three options." I like that. I think that, in many respects, this is a significant key to the ongoing health (if not outright survival) of our culture. However, a Third Way must be something other than a compromise. It cannot involve a simple "splitting of the difference" between Red and Blue positions, for many of the intractable social debates of our day admit of no compromise since both sides are defending what they sincerely believe to be incontrovertible moral absolutes, philosophical first principles. (The fact that both sides are defending values that are woven into the fabric of our founding documents -- like life and liberty -- does not seem to help all that much.) A Third Way must transcend, not strike an average. The latter is only compromise. The former is speaking with a fresh voice, seeking a synergic solution, or (in the famous sound bite phrase of Stephen Covey) "win-win or no deal". It's not easy to do. Since the alternative is despair, however, one might as well be up and doing.
Some practical baby steps
If I had a perfect set of solutions to offer, I would already be independently wealthy and canonized (not necessarily in that order) and would have been brought in as a consultant to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute. Lacking these solutions, I can only offer some "thought starter" ideas and suggestions for your perusal. I offer these in the hope that some of my more Purple readers may be willing to field test these and add some of their own. (Later on in this essay, I'll discuss some means by which readers can offer me their own ideas and feedback.)
Idea #1: Learn to empathize with your "opponents." Carol Orsborne (How Would Confucius Ask For A Raise?) suggests that you make a serious attempt -- in writing, to keep yourself honest -- to identify the best qualities in those people with whom you most disagree. What can you respect and honor about them? More radically, what do you secretly envy about them?
This is difficult for all of us, increasingly so as your core values are impacted. However, it's a good antidote to the kinds of cognitive processes that always operate in "ingroup-outgroup" situations. Inevitably, and even with the best will in the world, people come to see outgroup members as "all alike" and to exaggerate their negative tendencies (social psychologists use fancy terms like "leveling and sharpening" to characterize these tendencies). These are inherent in how the brain processes and classifies information, but they can easily lead to scapegoating, prejudice (even bigotry), and the dehumanization (if not outright demonization) of one's opponents. Mental exercises like this one help you to counteract this tendency. Don't start with the political candidate for whom you didn't vote; that's too hard. (Don't attempt graduate-level exercises when you are still in kindergarten.) Instead, start with the person next door who happens to be Red to your Blue, or vice versa.
Idea #2: Start a conversation. Bruce Feiler (Abraham: A Journey To The Heart of Three Faiths) has made it his life mission to promote positive interfaith dialogue by hosting "Abraham Salons" during which Jews, Muslims, and Christians get to share around an idea (the story of Abraham) that they have in common. It's a good idea, supported by the social psychological concept of "equal status contact". It's hard to hate (or stereotype) a live human being who is sitting next to you, talking rationally about his or her hopes and fears, telling his or her own story. A hint: everyone has a right to their own story, so listen respectfully; don't try to change them. (Not yet, anyway.) Assume that you have as much to learn from they as they do from you; that's invariably true, even if in the final analysis, you remain convinced that they are wrong about the basics. (Relax: they think the same about you.)
If you're an extreme Blue or Red, don't try crossing the ideological spectrum. Instead, find a Blueish Purple (or Reddish Purple, as the case may be) and learn what it's like to dialog with someone who sees a little more value in the "universe next door" (to borrow James Sire's fine phrase) than you do. Put a human face on the ideological issues. Learn firsthand how much you have in common with those who occupy a different spot on the vast Purple continuum that is America. If you want to be still more radical about this (in the original sense of the term of getting to the root of things -- radix means "root" in Latin), try apologizing to the other party for the pain your side has caused their side. Hard, yes. Humbling, yes. However, I have it on good authority that the peacemakers are blessed.
Idea #3: Find a common goal. Reds and Blues don't disagree about everything! Both love America (though they have, of course, sharply divergent views of what America should be). Both want the world their children inhabit to be better than the one they currently occupy (though their definitions of "better" differ markedly). Both can identify social problems that need solutions: the looming bankruptcy of the Social Security Trust Fund, for instance (extrapolating from current trends, my golden years will largely be copper), or the need to make schools places that are free from gratuitous violence (even the NRA agrees that kindergarteners should not fire assault rifles).
Conflict theorists talk about the importance of a "superordinate goal". That, too, is solid scientific advice. The court of last resort is to encourage a full-scale terrorist attack on America, so that Reds and Blues alike are forced to unite in defending the nation against a common enemy, or die in the process. I don't recommend a solution this extreme, however. Better to find internally generated superordinate goals on which both sides can agree. There are often surprising areas of agreement (for instance, both pro-life and pro-choice advocates can agree that encouraging appropriate adoption initiatives is a good idea).
Idea #4: Cultivate a jigsaw culture. Elliott Aronson is famous for his "jigsaw classroom" concept, which has been quietly revolutionizing public education for the past five years or so. He argues that zero-sum social structures (in which I can only win at your expense) inherently breed unhealthy competition and prejudice, regardless of the initial motives of those enmeshed in them. His goal is to construct an explicitly nonzero-sum structure in the educational arena, in which students can succeed only by helping other students and by helping them to be helpful in return. It works astonishingly well, though (as Aronson himself would probably admit) it is an inefficient system.
Can we develop, over time, a "jigsaw culture" that brings this same idea into other realms, such as the vocational or the political? It's an interesting question. If it is possible, to the extent that it's possible, it's not going to be a top-down process. It will only happen at a local, bottom-up, grassroots level, as people experience for themselves the reality that cooperation is more powerful (in generating tangible and intangible benefits for all participants) than is competition. Look for ways to build bridges of cooperation and mutual interdependence with those whom you might naturally tend to disparage or despise. It's hard to go on hating someone whose life is inextricably linked with your own.
Purple violet squish: An unscientific postscript
I'm hoping that this essay doesn't die a quiet death, as most Web information does. It's unlikely to hit the national media (in fact, I don't even expect a call from the local TV affiliate). But I'm hoping to promote some healthy dialogue among the population, however small it may be, of those who do read this essay.
To that end, I suggest the following line of give and take. I welcome emails responding to these ideas. Please use the subject line "Purple America" to facilitate my tour through my inbox. I ask that those who reply be respectful, irenic rather than polemic, charitable whether you agree or disagree. I'm especially interested in additional ideas for promoting Purple Americanism, or your experiences with field-testing the ideas I suggest above. I'm not so utopian as to think that these ideas will transform society or usher in a new era of peace; the Red in me knows that human nature is far too fatally flawed for such sui generis solutions to work. But while my ideas won't save society, they may help (in the spirit of Bernard Ramm's idea of "redemptive ethics") to stem the decline. My hope is for a "lengthening of tranquility" in our nation, if nothing more. It may not be "Morning in America" any more, but I'd like to postpone the hour of midnight.
In closing, thanks for taking the time to read this essay! Perhaps, one fine day, Reds and Blues will find themselves again able to take baby steps toward building a bridge of understanding that will lead us towards a true Third Way. If not, we'll at least learn something about the limits of social psychology!
Violetly (not the same as violently),
Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 2004 Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D. -- All rights reserved
To Kaleidoscope Consulting Services:
Back to NEW Coalition notes for March 1, 2005