Jane Geiger – Putnam and Campbell Chapter 15 – Religiously Diverse Networks
With this chapter from American Grace- How Religion Divides and Unites Us, there is careful emphasis placed on the statistics to demonstrate religious diversity and opinions within the United States. Americans are beginning to live in more diverse neighborhoods, both culturally and religiously, but 93% of Americans believe all of the country is living areas strongly divided by race. 96% say the divisions in American society are based on economic lines, 97% say divisions come from political divisiveness, and 72% say religious lines. This chapter focuses mainly on the way in which American see religious diversity, growth, and isolation within the United States.
The majority of religious Americans of all backgrounds believe that people of other religions can still go to heaven. That percentage lessens for Christians when the other religion in question is not another branch of Christianity, but hovers around 50%. 80% of Americans believe that there are basic truths in every religion, but 85% of Americans believe that “morality is a personal matter and society should not force everyone to follow one standard.” This highlights the belief that Americans want government to stay out of religion and for it to be a primarily private matter.
Three main principles from the article are the Aunt Susan Principle, the My Friend Al Principle, and description of Social Capital. The help explain religious interaction and the ways in which they can become positively associated. The Aunt Susan principle operates under the idea that everyone has an “Aunt Susan” in their lives- someone who epitomizes goodness in your particular religion, but have a different religious background from your own. The My Friend Al Principle is similar in the way that it focuses on social interactions with individuals of a different religious group. In this case, two individuals find a common connection such as a love of sports, reading, or shopping, and then find that one individual is of a particular religious group. Because the two can relate in other realms, the religious group of the other individuals is believed to be not that bad or different. This is especially common with individuals practicing marginalized religions such as Islam, Mormonism, or Evangelical Christianity. Finally, Social Capital references the norms of trust and reciprocity that arise out of our social networks. According to Gordon Allport, everyone must ensure that all groups within society have equal status, share common goal, have intergroup connection, and the support of authorities and laws.
All three of these ideas hinge on the belief that a religiously diverse social network will lead to an overall more positive assessment of various religious groups, and therefore should be highly encouraged. This can not only be applied to religion, but the way in which Americans interact within individuals of different races, sexual orientations, and political parties.
Graham Pfeiffer – Hibbing, Smith, and Alford, Chapter 19 -Can Conservaton and Liberalville Survive Together?
In Chapter 9 of their book, Predisposed, Hibbing, Smith and Alford argue that biology has a role to play in making people predisposed to specific political views. They create a hypothetical world in which three towns, (Conservaton, Liberalville and Middletown), represent the ideological basis of American politics. They argue that conservatives will never understand liberals and vice versa. Liberals and conservatives “see, understand and describe the world differently” and it influences their politics. The authors see the people of America speaking different political languages. The authors of this piece do not give a definitive solution, in fact state, “No magic institutional formula can make divided politics go away.” (pg. 261) They do offer two necessary steps towards resolving the problem of the political language disconnect.
The first solution they offer is to stop trying to convince the other side that your world view is correct. Whether you are liberal or conservative, time is wasted trying to convince people that will never see the world in the same way. The authors believe that predispositions cannot be “gamed.” This means that the democrats can’t speak in conservative terms and frame their views for conservatives and be successful and the same applies to republicans and liberal values. So the authors advise an acceptance of the opposite sides’ political views. The authors state that political opinions are correct for you but to “be humble about them and recognize that they will not and cannot lead to the kind of society everyone wants because not everyone has the same perceptions of reality and therefore of the most desirable social arrangements.” (pg. 255-256) The authors recognize that factions cannot be destroyed and quote Madison’s two ways of destroying factions. One, by taking away the liberty that gives people the right to express opinions. Second, is to force everyone to have the same political opinions. Since this is not feasible, the best possible solution is to empower the people who pay attention to the interests of more than their own faction in a representative government.
The second recommendation comes from a problem created by the first recommendation. Representative democracy exacerbates the problems of factions. So if neither direct democracy, nor representative democracy helps the problem, what will? The authors say that it is the structure of the American political system that makes representative democracy apart of the problem. They say that conservatives and liberals disproportionately define the choices of collective action. They state that people who are only concerned about their faction are in control of the government and leads the head-butting we see in politics. Their solution? A reformed system that allows moderates a larger political role to support candidates that can bridge the gap. “It is impossible to avoid the implications of predispositions and the best that can be done is to manage these predispositions that insures we count, rather than bash, heads to resolve differences.” (pg. 261) This is not a solution, but a guide to how we form policy moving forward to fix the way our government runs.
Mary Olivia Rentner – Settle, Chapter 9 – Erasing the Coast of Bohemia in the Era of Social Media
Social media is a useful tool for political ideas to be stated, heard, and discussed. Unfortunately, social media has become a place where people are politically polarized. The solution to reducing psychological polarization, which is prevalent on Facebook, is not to get rid of platforms like Facebook or getting rid of “weak ties” (interacting with friends of friends). We also can’t stop people from talking about political matters because free speech is important to our country. There needs to be a change in mindset about how we communicate on social media and what we are trying to gain from these interactions. This chapter discusses five potential solutions, increasing information quality, increasing political transparency, incentivizing moderation, reacting deliberately, and eliminating highly visible quantification.
The idea behind increasing political transparency is that people would report their ideology on a scale, take quizzes that show their political beliefs, etc and then these results are shared with friends. Ideally, this would reduce people’s ability to assume what another person’s political beliefs are. Person A may be against immigration and post articles about it, but they also wrote on their profile that they believe everyone should have access to health care. You wouldn’t have to make assumptions about every aspect of someone’s political beliefs based on where they eat and the cars they buy, because it would be readily available information. It would link us in many ways, and hopefully, help people find common ground.
Reacting deliberately on Facebook would allow for civil and intellectual debates that are not based on emotion as much as they are based on logic and reasoning. Social feedback on social media (the ‘like’ button) reinforces what people believe about the world, especially about politics. They either get support from people who are similar to themselves or they get negative responses from people who are very different ideologically. Facebook could use “deliberative reaction” buttons for political posts so that people aren’t just reacting emotionally, but asking for ‘clarification’ or ‘sources’ so that they can have a civil conversation.
Over time, these changes should alter the psychology of polarization and impact how we discuss politics and how we respond to new information. Positive social interactions on Facebook will decrease hatred felt toward people who have opposing ideologies. Getting rid of social media would be harmful because that is how many people access the news and learn about members of the other political party. The intended outcome of these solutions is to increase understanding and civility.
DCSI - American Politics 