We all decry the polarization that we currently observe on many issues, race, politics, guns, healthcare, climate, immigration. Columnists and scholars have produced reams of arguments intended to change the opinions of those on the opposing side. However, it is difficult not to conclude that rational argument, as important as it is, does not reduce polarization.
Both the failure and a possible solution lie in our understanding of implicit bias. Dewey names three core beliefs that result in polarization:
- The other is not a Thou, deserving of equal treatment.
- The other is irrational, not fit to make sound judgements.
- There is no good reason to cooperate with the other.
Kahneman (2011) explains two types of thinking our brain does. “System 1 is the brain's fast, emotional, unconscious thinking mode. This type of thinking requires little effort, but it is often error prone. Most everyday activities (like driving, talking, cleaning, etc.) make heavy use of the type 1 system. Type 2 system is slow, logical, effortful, conscious thought, where reason dominates.”
Implicit bias is based in System 1 thinking. Implicit refers to attitudes or stereotypes that impact our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious way, making them difficult to control. For example, I cannot choose to no longer associate penguins and ice in my mind. None of us intentionally built that association, but there it is. When you say “penguin,” I see a fat little upright black and white bird standing on ice, and no amount of telling me not to associate the two is going to work.
We all have implicit biases, many of which we are unaware. Those biases are different for each of us based on the part of the country we live in, family influences, peer associations, media influences, etc. We may hold biases related to any of a number of human characteristics, race, people in poverty, rich people, overweight people, short people, disabled, and so on. If you doubt that you are subject to implicit bias, go to implicit.harvard.edu and take the free tests to see how you score on any of those topics, and more.
So what to do?
The answer, according to Lauren Barthold, is dialogue. But for dialogue to address implicit bias takes several steps and only happens over time. The first step is a dialogue in which partners hear each other's first-person narratives, that is, listens to someone, who is on the opposite side of an issue, talk about their life and experiences, however, without talking about experiences that are associated with the issue on which they conflict. What hearing another person’s experiences does is humanize them, that is, we begin to see them as someone who is capable of reasoning, and who is even well-meaning. We can see similarities between ourselves and the other, for example, concern about children or care for the disabled. Kahneman explains that it is stories, not argument, that lie at the basis of our beliefs. He claims arguments are constructed “ex post facto” to support a belief that already exists.
Hearing another’s story allows us to see the other as more than a stereotype. Still, hearing first-person narratives alone will not remove implicit bias. But it is possible for those stories to result in smaller changes in our thinking. For example, one possible outcome is that the listener decides to be more aware of when “others” are not represented in a conversation or a meeting, and to act on that awareness. Another outcome might be the willingness to engage the "other" in a joint project, which provides the opportunity to get to know them more fully. Such actions, over time, can start to replace implicit associations with more recent and positive associations.
Another possible outcome of hearing first-person stories is an awareness that encourages us to modify the language we use in talking about “others.” Such a change might include using labels that would be preferred by the other, rather than terms they might find derogatory and that serve to perpetuate stereotypes in our own mind as well as in their minds. The example Leslie provides is that instead of labeling the other with nouns such as “a Muslim,” we might instead use adjectives or descriptive phrases as in, “a person who follows Islam.” In this way, the description depicts one aspect of the individual, not their whole identity. Such a language change is subtle, yet reflects a broader perspective on the other; that is, they are more than their view on a particular issue. Changing to labels preferred by the other could impact the way we speak about the other as well as to the other.
Barthold explains, “The claim is not that dialogue will immediately eliminate implicit bias. Rather, the claim is a dialogue can motivate an individual to explicitly choose an egalitarian goal (such as inclusion or the use of more neutral language) which, over time, can be habituated to replace the nonegalitarian implicit association.”