For a much fuller response to this pivotal question, read my book The Polarized Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Polarized-Mind-Killing-What-About/dp/B09KMK471Y), Ernest Becker’s Denial of Death (https://www.amazon.com/Denial-Death-Ernest-Becker/dp/0684832402), Sheldon Solomon et al.’s Worm at the Core (https://www.amazon.com/Worm-Core-Role-Death-Life/dp/0141981628), and the theorist all this work draws from abundantly, Otto Rank, who wrote such classics as The Trauma of Birth (https://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Birth-Otto-Rank/dp/1578989760), Will Therapy (https://www.amazon.com/Will-therapy-analysis-therapeutic-relationship/dp/B0006ANBT6), and Art and Artist (https://www.amazon.com/Art-Artist-Creative-Personality-Development/dp/0393305740). Like Rank et al., I believe the roots of polarization begin very early, namely in the eruptive aspect of our experience of birth and the shift from relative nonexistence and tranquillity to abrupt existence. This is where our template for handling radical otherness and foreignness forms and is largely (parentally and culturally) shaped. Depending on the integrity of this shaping, the child and subsequent adult will be more or less susceptible to fear-based, polarizing states. Put another way, the primordial fear of helplessness and insignificance (which can be magnified by subsequent trauma and conditioning) seems to be a major driver of polarized, fixated, and absolutist states.

By cultivating optimal capacities for presence both within themselves and toward others. By presence, I mean the holding and illuminating of that which is palpably significant within oneself and between oneself and another. Meditative practice, personal (depth) therapy, training settings prizing personal and interpersonal presence (and the relational), and immersion in the arts and humanities can all contribute to the cultivation of this vital socially nourishing dimension. I elaborate many more details about the facilitation of presence and social connectedness in case formulation and care planning in my book with Orah Krug Supervision Essentials for Existential-Humanistic Therapy (https://www.amazon.com/Supervision-Essentials-Existential-Humanistic-Therapy-Clinical/dp/1433822814), as well as our text Existential-Humanistic Therapy (https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Humanistic-Therapy-Theories-Psychotherapy-%C2%AE/dp/1433827379). See also Geller and Greenberg’s excellent Therapeutic Presence (https://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Presence-Mindful-Approach-Effective/dp/1433810603). Training programs with the Existential-Humanistic Institute (ehinstitute.org) may also be a useful resource for those who wish to hone their capacities for presence and social connectedness.

I don’t know of any “sweet spot” or blueprint for optimal encouragement to engage in social connectedness. I do, however, know that in-depth, experientially oriented therapy for both groups and individuals has benefitted many support seekers (including myself). As with many complex issues, the frequency and intensity of such endeavors should align with the needs and abilities of those seeking support. Bridge-building forums like Braver Angels (https://braverangels.org/), Nonviolent Communications Networks, and the Experiential Democracy Dialogue (https://www.amazon.com/Depolarizing-America-Guidebook-Social-Healing/dp/1939686636) can be very valuable to those seeking support for engaging in uncomfortable cultural or political conversations, and they attempt to strike a balance between strong contexts of safety and modest risk-taking.

Yes, see studies like “More in Common” (https://www.moreincommon.com/). Studies such as the latter indicate that there is notably more commonality in regard to areas like personal and communal safety, health, meaningful work and family relationships than is conventionally portrayed by the media and politicians who often have ulterior motives for fomenting divisiveness and sensationalism. Forums, as noted above, like Braver Angels etc., also show that there are many people (over 10K with Braver Angels) who find significant common ground through bridge-building dialogues. That said, I don’t in any way mean to discount the real and increasing divisiveness in our country, which should motivate all of us to do what we can to address it. Here is a brief article summarizing the challenge: https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/want-a-civil-society-learn-to-be-present.

Perhaps, although there are studies such as a recent Rand Corporation paper that I cite in my article above “Want a Civil Society? Learn to be Present” (https://www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/want-a-civil-society-learn-to-be-present) that indicate that “teaching” those with strongly contrasting ideologies is not necessarily the most effective way to communicate messages, and actually backfires in many cases. I believe what is needed just as much as a more robust scientific education in our country is a more robust network of bridge-building dialogues (as I cite above) that promote getting to know people as people rather than as “students” or the “uneducated.” Such dialogues can then serve as a basis for a more mutually engaged discussion in which the receptivity to areas like the science of vaccination may be enhanced. In the long run, critical conversations like this will take a “both/and” approach.

Again, see my book with Orah Krug Existential-Humanistic Therapy (https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Humanistic-Therapy-Theories-Psychotherapy-%C2%AE/dp/1433827379) for more detail but here is a thumbnail sketch:

1. the support and freedom to explore that which deeply matters to one;
2. experiential reflection on that question (and by “experiential reflection,” I mean “here-now” reflection with one’s whole body experience—cognitive, affective, sensate, and intuitive); and
3. the challenge of taking responsibility or the “ability to respond” to that which one discovers through experiential reflection.
   In essence, the entire approach revolves around two basic (often implicit) questions which are evoked at each phase of the work: “How are you presently living?” and “How are you willing to live?”

Again see my book The Polarized Mind: Why It’s Killing Us and What We Can Do About It (https://www.amazon.com/Polarized-Mind-Killing-What-About/dp/B09KMK471Y) for more details. But my basic perspective is that existential depth research (including many studies in the social psychological field of “terror management theory”) indicates that authoritarianism—or what I call the ”polarized mind” is driven largely by fear. The fear of insignificance and of not counting, in particular, seems to be a chief driver, and that fear is often associated with individual and collective trauma. When that trauma goes unmediated, people tend to take one of two extreme (polarized) positions—fight or flight. Authoritarianism seems more linked to the “fight” end of the equation and manifests as a whole (rigid and aggressive) lifestyle dedicated to doing everything one can to avoid the feelings of smallness and imperceptibility associated with earlier wounds.

Yes, that would be unrealistic, and I don’t take that position. By contrast, I take the position that we could do much better in promoting life-affirming, non-polarizing, and discovery-oriented groups than we currently are, and that “awe-based” and “meaning-based” priorities in society could help bring about that shift. In the long run, I believe we need to make that shift at the level of child-rearing, the educational and work settings, religious and spiritual settings, and the deliberative-legislative arena. But in the shorter run, we need to aim at supporting a “critical mass” of people who hunger for a more fluid and peaceable world, a world where tensions can be held and channeled more creatively and thereby equitably. We will probably never reach the most polarizing elements of our society and world, but we can marginalize those elements so that they don’t become the arbiters and instigators of our fate.