Bridging Partisan Divides: Dialectical Engagement and Deep Sociality

Abstract

In recent decades, we have witnessed increasing polarization, divisiveness and hostility in political discourse. This paper outlines a relational-dialectical approach to constructive political discourse. Instead of treating political discourse as competition over clashing positions, the relational approach seeks ways to bridge political differences through dialectical engagement. The process is organized around three principles: (a) the focus on needs and problems rather than political positions, (b) deep sociality, and (c) the dialectical construction of novel forms of thinking through the integration of opposites. I illustrate these principles in the context of political discourse related to gun violence in the United States.

Notes

1 Much debate makes reference to conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Some argue that gun rights are protected by the Amendment’s reference to the “right to keep and bears arms”; others hold that this right refers primarily to the need for a “well regulated Militia.”

2 The interests and problem-solving strategies indicated in Figure 5 are intentionally hypothetical and illustrative and not prescriptive. The strength of collaborative problem solving lies in the relational process itself—the idea that novel ways of representing and addressing problems can arise that could not be specified prior to joint problem-solving. Thus, while the interests and strategies depicted in Figure 5 may seem relatively uncontroversial, offering particular ways of representing or addressing a given issue runs the risk of pre-empting and misrepresenting the open-ended nature of the collaborative process.