Harmonize your racial politics

Connect competing racial views to clashing psychosocial needs

This is the final in a series of eight articles covering various politicized issues from the perspective of deeper needs. The next series of eight articles builds on this series.

Steph Turner, Value Relating

OVERVIEW

1. Divisive Politics
2. Harmony Politics
3. Defusing Polarization

Politics make for better windows than doors; it provides at best a provisional view from a distance, but you must get to specifics to actually enter. Start with each other’s diverse needs, or you certainly will slip off track.

Relying on generalizations to convey your needs impacted by racial politics, or any other politics, virtually guarantees those needs will not be fully resolved. Only specifics can do that.

One reason politics can be such a turnoff in mixed company is how a stance on issues as incendiary as race relations lacks reflective listening, affirming of needs, and any offer to help resolve needs on all sides. Politics as usual potentially reinforces these problems.

If on the right, do you honestly hear the painful needs behind complaints of oppression? When never fully resolving their social-need for their unorthodox individuality to be fully included in larger society, they experience this a threat or presence of oppression. A pain no less painful than those complaining of government tyranny.

If on the left, do you honestly hear the painful needs behind complaints of tyranny? When never fully resolving their self-need to assert their individual potential amidst an expanding role of government, they experience this as a threat or presence of tyranny. A pain no less painful than those complaining of societal oppression.

Divisive politics ensures you both remain in pain.

1. Divisive Politics

When neglecting differing specifics, you argue more than listen. You reject more than affirm. You demand more than offer. In general, you just get more of the same. To paraphrase Einstein, we cannot solve our specific problems with the level of generalizing that helped to create them.

You argue. You rationalize your politically shared point of view. You expect others to use their free will to see how right you are. You expect your audience to see how wrong the other side. Of course, the other side argues right back.

If on the political left, you probably proclaim...

Since racism is “prejudice plus power,” it persists collectively among 
unenlightened white folks as a systemic problem.

If on the political right, you likely insist...

Since racism is “judging people by their skin color,” it only persists as 
a problem on the far right and increasingly on the far left.

Both sides make a point, and leave a lot out. Who is most convinced by either argument? Those already believing this way? Those painfully experiencing it, but not experiencing the other?

You reject. You denounce the other side as wrong thinking, ill-informed, manipulated by media elites, corrupted by money or other nefarious motives. They say the same about you.

If leaning politically leftward, you insist that...

Republicans are quick to overlook where racism persists.

If leaning politically rightward, you are just as sure that...

Democrats are quick to see racism where it rarely exists.

Both sides sing to their respective choirs. Both sides spew their venom at each other. Polarization gets a boost from cool sounding soundbites.

You demand. You insist the other side agree to your policy fixes. You want laws written to serve your side. As if the affected needs on the other side doesn't count for much. Yet it most certainly does. The inevitable pushback easily serves as political entertainment. It draws views. It sells ads. Meanwhile, you stay in pain.

If demanding from the left, you shout out...

Check your white privilege. See how microaggressions traumatize. Strengthen 
antidiscrimination laws. Consider reparations.

If demanding from the right, you shout out...

Leave race out of policies, which is a debunked category. Decry black 
nationalism as much as white nationalism. End all racism.

Both sides shout past each other. Neither side honestly hears the needs beneath those sharp words. One side insists racism is personal and rare, while the other equally insist racism is systemic and common. They don’t even share a definition for the term. Are both wrong? Is there some truth to both sides? Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes they make a law.

2. Harmony Politics

Too much arguing for one side, abrasively rejecting the other and demanding agreement expects oversimplified reactions. Reality defies our attempts to force-fit our expectations. Pain usually results. Politics does little to solve it.

Behind political arguments sit many untested assumptions. Harmony politics attempts to test some assumptions to transcend our political differences.

• The less you can freely access what your life requires, the more pain you continually endure.
• The more pain from this inaccessibility, the typically more extreme your politics for relief.
• The less you can access what you require on your own, the more you dependent you become upon government provisions.
• The more you can access what you require on your own, the less dependent upon government—and more impersonal government can deter your personal aims.
• The wider your relationships, and potentially shallower your social circles, the more liberal and socially progressive your politics.
• The deeper your relationships, and potentially narrower your social circles, the more conservative and reactionary your politics.

Instead of relying on tribalizing assumptions, these tested assumptions enable you to listen more than argue, affirm more than reject, and offer more than demand.

You listen. You hear for the vulnerable needs behind the guarded rhetoric. You appreciate how each side sees most clearly through the lens of their psychosocial orientation, wide or deep. You listen for needs rarely if ever spoken overtly in mixed company.

If liberal views expressed through a wide-oriented lens, the listener may hear...

"I need everyone to recognize where being ethnically different continues to exclude me/us in less obvious forms, limiting full inclusion in greater society."

If conservative views expressed through a deep-oriented lens, the listener may hear...

"I need deeper ties not oversensitive to ethnic subtleties, which regrettably can appear exclusionary but is more inclusionary if you get to know me.”

You affirm. You recognize the inflexible needs behind their sharp rhetoric. What each side requires may be similar, but how they need it quickly diverges. The "how" includes who can regularly access what they require--themselves or must rely on others.

The wide-oriented's social-needs (like inclusion, belonging, equal respect) tend to be less resolved than their self-needs (like authenticity, uniqueness, personal freedom). This tension orients them to liberal ideas for relief.

The deep-oriented's social-needs (like familial cohesion, belonging, loyalty) tend to be more resolved than their self-needs (like initiative, self-determination, self-expression). This tension orients them to conservative ideas for relief.

They can't easily change the situation shaping their painfully felt needs, nor can you. Affirming each other's needs negates the inevitable pushback from blanket rejection.

• Wide's unmet social-need: NO ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION. Affirm how feeling less obvious forms of unfair racial or ethnic discrimination persists in public life
• Wide's guarded self-need: ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT. Affirm their autonomy to be ethnically and even culturally different, unassimilated into traditional norms.
• Deep's guarded social-need: DEEPER TIES. Affirm their mostly ethnic common ground bonding, whether intentional or by accident, providing familiarly stable support throughout their isolated lives.
• Deep's unmet self-need: SELF-ACCEPTANCE. Affirm how feeling unaccepted in many social spaces for being specifically inclusive of others after getting to know them personally, instead of a more popular inclusiveness generalizing group identities.

You offer. You link your capacity to faithfully serve their needs to their responsiveness to your affected needs. You set your needs aside just long enough to connect with theirs. In other words, you replace any temptation to turn hostile with a relatable love.

Look at those psychosocial needs cited above. Plug those into a sentence for relating to each other's impacted needs.

The wide-oriented offers the deep-oriented a path of relatable understanding. The liberal voice connects with the vulnerable needs behind conservative voices.

The more I honor your unmet self-need for self-acceptance, I trust you’ll find it easier to respect our guarded self-need to be ethnically different.

The more I respect your guarded social-need for deeper ties, I trust you’ll find it easier to honor our unmet social-need for no ethnic discrimination.

The deep-oriented offers the wide-oriented a path of relatable understanding. The conservative voice connects with the vulnerable needs behind liberal voices

The more I respect your guarded self-need to be ethnically different, I trust you’ll find it easier to honor our unmet self-need for self-acceptance.

The more I honor your unmet social-need for no ethnic discrimination, I trust you’ll find it easier to respect our guarded social-need for deeper ties.

This all fits into a larger process. Skipping over a bulk of nuance to keep this introductory material accessible. This can, however, plant some seeds of legitimacy to help heal our dysfunctional politics. One loving act at a time. If you don't, who will?

3. Defusing Polarization: A whole new way to understand politics

I'm just getting started here. There isn't enough space in one article to delve into the depths of harmony politics. More politicized issues will be parsed this way and posted here soon. Starting with this current article, here is the growing list of depolarized politicized positions.

• Immigration: easy entry or vetted entry.
• Climate Change: government regulated or deregulated.
• Gun Safety: government regulated or deregulated.
• Abortion: reproductive rights pro-choice or unborn rights pro-life.
• Healthcare: government administer or private insurer.
• Criminal Justice: transform or reform.
• Economy: government led or market led.
• Racism: common systemic or rare personal.

Later, I expect to use these to critique the tweets of candidates running for office. And welcome others to critique these candidates using the same criteria, including feedback for improving the process.

Next, I revisit these eight issues in the next series of eight articles. I cover the issue from each of the nuanced psychosocial orientations introduced in the last article. Plus, I start testing their use in Twitter. Follow along.

Better yet, contact me personally if I can consult for you. Let’s test some assumptions together. If divisive politics isn’t quite working for you, ready to try harmonizing your politics? I'd love to speak with you.

EXPLORE IN MORE DETAIL

For years, I've struggled how to bring this pioneering insight to market. My most recent effort attempts to provide a subscription to what I called Unifying Politics or Empowering Politics, but now stalled as I engage folks like to learn what those in the market actually need and willingly buy.

A couple years ago, I created a Udemy course covering far more depth than I can jump into here. I invite you now to check it out, by clicking on one of the course images below. And to keep me engaged with those like you who are passionate about politics, and longing to depolarize it. Oh, and to help finance early development of this pioneering service.

BASIC level

If all you need is space to learn at your own pace, enroll for only $9.99. Ask me anything about the course using Udemy's interactive feature. Click on image to visit.

ACTIVIST level

If you are involved in political activism and need to step up your game, enroll for $24.99. Ask me how I can apply this to your current activism needs as you wrap each of the course's seven units, using Udemy's interactive feature. Help me help you. Click on image to visit.

PROFESSIONAL level

If you oversee a professional political campaign (as a candidate running for office or on that candidate's staff), enroll for $44.99. Ask me anything about how to apply this pioneering approach to give you a competitive edge over your divisive opponents. We can segue to videoconferencing or an agreed upon format better suited to your needs. I envision providing a blueprint you can run with. Which could morph into a consulting agreement where I specifically serve your politicking goals. Click on image to visit.

SHARE THE WEALTH

If you find this article valuable, please click "like" and share freely. Spread the love, and let some of this love return back to you.

Don't forget to comment below. Thank you.