Perspective: Building Social Bridges: Lessons from the North Georgia Mountains

By Nathan Olver, Vice President of OSI | Oct. 23, 2024

Have you ever built a bridge? I’m no civil engineer, but growing up in the North Georgia mountains, I had my fair share of bridge building endeavors to cross streams and creeks. While my early attempts often faltered or ended up getting washed away when the creek swelled after heavy summer rains, over the years, my brother and I improved our craft and ended up constructing a solid bridge across our creek. We found that the best bridges had a few things in common such as a good foundation, a good crossing point along the creek, and a willingness to build the bridge (as opposed to the alternative of sloshing through the creek bed to the other side). Our society today is desperately in need of better bridge builders. Of course I do not refer to physical bridges designed to cross creeks, but rather social bridges that cross the social divides which seemingly deepen daily. 

Allow me to illustrate this point through a real world example of two coworkers I know who became unlikely friends. One is a midwestern woman, a self proclaimed ideological communist (she of course opposes how communism has played out practically in Russia, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere) and an agnostic. In quite the contrast, the other is a relatively politically conservative, God-fearing, southern guy. If we stopped there you wouldn’t be able to come up with a more different set of individuals. And yet I can tell you that they became friends and colleagues who share regular conversations about politics, beliefs, and day-to-day life in a civil manner, though they have their fair share disagreements. How is this possible? While I listed key identifiers that typically make up lines of division between groups, there is far more to a group of people than the monikers that are their social identifiers. Below the surface of those identifiers, both of these coworkers also happen to share a love of trivia, sports, helping people in need, and a distaste for what is happening in the current political climate. Their beliefs about the world, humanity, God, and politics couldn’t be more different, but their values are remarkable similar in many ways. They have built a social bridge between their represented groups that typically would never interact with or speak to one another aside from a potential social media sparring match. How did they do this? The recipe for success was simple, and it goes right back to my bridge building projects in the creeks of North Georgia.

The same principles which applied to successful bridge building when I was growing up, are highly transferrable to our social and political divides today. The best social bridges start with a solid foundation. A solid foundation for groups that are typically “at odds” with one another may be found in different ways depending on the groups. Some of the most typical social divides are socio-economic, racial, rural-urban, and religious-secular. If you only look at the differences between yourself and another social group you will automatically be disinclined to associate with them or speak with them. First and foremost regardless of our differences, all people, no matter how seemingly crazy their beliefs and opinions are, they are human beings. The traditional rural conservative who cares very deeply about his right to own a firearm values protecting his culture, his autonomy, and his ability to protect his family. The traditional urban liberal who is passionate about restrictions on gun ownership also values protecting his autonomy, and his ability to protect his family. Their diverging experiences and cultures result in similar values that are expressed in very different ways. Pausing to recognize one another’s humanity and rational values which underly beliefs is essential to building social bridges. 

This leads to the next key element to any bridge, a good crossing point. As with any relationship, if you look for common ground—a shared interest, a shared underlying value, or a shared experience—then you will have more success in engaging with one another. When those two coworkers first met, they both realized pretty quickly that they were a part of different groups. They also discovered common ground in similar values, such as an interest in de-polarizing discourse, promoting civic engagement, and a concern for the welfare of the local community. Rather than focusing on their differences, the coworkers both chose to lean into areas where they found similarity—good crossing points.

Finally, none of this will be successful unless we find people who have a willingness to build. Most people would look at a creek that they didn’t have to cross and decide not to bother at all if no convenient options were presented to them. Others might choose a one-time slosh through the creek to the other side but plan never to venture that way again. Still others may throw up a temporary bridge that would get washed away by the next big rain. All of these approaches are understandable. They value the ease of an accessible temporary option over the investment of a long-term solution. Building a bridge that has the potential to last involves real work, and it’s typically more than a one man job. Building bridges that cross social and political divides is uncommon because it takes effort, and it’s easier to settle in to our comfortable echo chambers than to put forth the energy needed to build social bridges. Decades of this short-term thinking have left us with one of the most polarized and divided moments in the history of our nation. Everyone recognizes this ill fate, and everyone is ready to point a finger of blame, but too few are willing to build better bridges. 

The goal of bridge building is a change in temperament. To build social bridges we need not dilute our beliefs, values, or convictions—these are essential materials to bring to the building ground. Our posture in presenting these materials must be tempered with humility, understanding, and empathy. We will never see eye to eye with everyone, but if we don’t reestablish a social ethic that encourages cooperation between disparate groups, our social fabric will continue to deteriorate. Our society has plenty of creeks to be crossed, and it’s time to build the bridges necessary to traverse them.

Nathan Olver is Vice President and Co-Founder of The Organization for Social Innovation. He is based in West Palm Beach, Florida and has an MS in International Development and Masters of Business Administration.

Perspective: The Things That Divide Us. Polarization: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

By Nathan Olver, Vice President of OSI | Feb. 2, 2024

In the news and media we regularly hear statements such as, “increasing polarization divides the United States'' and “polarization levels reach all time high between political parties.” These one-liners grab headlines, but may leave us wondering what exactly polarization is and how it affects our lives. Though the implication is that polarization presents a monumental challenge, even writing this, I pause to consider if polarization really undermines the very fiber of social cohesion as is suggested by many.

Simply defined, polarization is a “division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.” So when two individuals engage in verbal jousting on social media over their difference in opinions on an issue like abortion, the southern border, religion, or even opposing sports teams (be careful about putting an Eagles fan and a Cowboys fan in the same room) they are walking, talking examples of polarization. Now, two sports fans passionately supporting their respective teams can usually find common ground on certain things, their shared love of football for instance. The problem polarization presents is when groups grow to have animosity and distrust toward those who hold different beliefs than themselves. Polling conducted in 2022 by leading think tank, the Pew Research Center, shows that over 60% of Republicans and Democrats view people in the opposite party as “close-minded,” “dishonest,” and “immoral.” This strong emotional distrust of members of the other party is a primary driver of the polarization we see in politics today. It is also a serious concern. If a majority of citizens from the two largest partisan demographics in the US view the other side in those terms, a legitimate threat is posed to the foundation of consensus and unity upon which the United States was built.

This raises a critical distinction that major news outlets, who prey on polarization as an opportunity for profit, will fail to mention: we are not nearly as ideologically polarized as we perceive, but we are very affectively polarized. For example, an average self-proclaimed Democrat and self-proclaimed Republican may think they disagree on every issue, every belief, every idea about how things should be, and they certainly will disagree on some key issues. However, research shows that ideologically, the divide between average citizens affiliated with different parties is not as wide as it seems (Westfall et al., 2015) At the same time, those very two individuals from opposing groups most certainly do feel extremely polarized. As Dr. AJ Simmons from the University of Illinois explains it, “affective partisanship is a heck of a drug.” This manufactures a false sense of difference between groups of people, when in reality, there is more achievable middle-ground between opposers than they may think. In other words, there is far more hope for citizens across party spectrums to get along and work with one another than the headlines indicate.

As you may imagine, people from different cultural, socioeconomic, racial, national, and religious backgrounds can also be polarized. In fact, in any context where there are rival or opposing groups, polarization is possible. The good news is current research shows that when polarized groups are brought together to seek common ground solutions resulting in action, real progress can be made to overcome perceived differences. In fact, “Empirical evidence from overseas and from the United States has found that assembling groups across difference to talk can make a significant difference in a highly polarized atmosphere, if the goal is to uncover shared elements of a common agenda on which groups can act.” (Klienfeld, 2023). That’s why here at OSI we have the mission to facilitate solution-driven discussions that promote engagement, awareness, and action regarding local, national, and global issues.


References:

Pew Research Center. 2022.  As Partisan Hostility Grows, Signs of Frustration With the Two-Party System. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/

Klienfeld, Rachel. Polarization, September 2023. Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says.Carnegie Endowment for Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457

“Polarization.” Google’s English dictionary provided by Oxford Languages. 


Simmons, AJ. June 2022. (Affective) Partisanship is a Heck of a Drug: What is it and Why We Might Want to Be Concerned About it. The Capitol Connection. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/8598/1856087383


Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J.R. and Judd, C.M., 2015. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), pp.145-158.

Nathan Olver is Vice President and Co-Founder of The Organization for Social Innovation. He is based in West Palm Beach, Florida and has an MS in International Development and Masters of Business Administration.

Perspective: Civil Discourse: What Is It? Why Does It Matter?

By Nathan Olver, Vice President of OSI | Jan. 11, 2024

Examples of civil discourse are hard to find in today’s culture and media. For most, it is probably easier to find examples of what civil discourse is not than what it is. For example, the recent presidential debates have been anything but civil —grown men and women disagreeing with one another via name calling, degrading commentary, and shouting over one another to be heard. Unfortunately, this example is the one that our society has decided to emulate, especially via digital mediums. The civil discourse which was foundational to American society for generations has become a lost art. So what does it look like to reincorporate civility and respect into exchanges of opposing views?  

At OSI we define civil discourse as a respectful airing of views with the intent of mutual understanding even amidst disagreement. Successful debate should involve a robust conversation, with plenty of room for passion, enthusiasm, understanding, and mutual respect. This all sounds nice, but in this era where every topic seems charged with live-or-die rhetoric, and many of our political leaders are far from role models of peace, unity, and civility, we lack critical representation of bridge-building deliberation.

I sometimes think back to college, where I witnessed many examples of successful and respectful civil discourse. Once during my junior year, a large group of people gathered in my residence hall for a “Greatest of All Time” conversation, debating topics of varying categories ranging from sports to condiments. Several individuals presented their impassioned defense of why they believed their chosen athletes, condiments, etc. were the greatest of all time. Everyone in the room listened with rapt attention, applauding or disagreeing throughout the debate and voting for who they believed presented the best arguments. There was abundant passion in the room, there was some agreement, some vocal disagreement, even some changing of views, but most notably, there was a recognized mutual respect for everyone involved—no matter their views at the end of the day. 

While this may seem like a silly example of college students having some fun, our society would do well to consider the merit of this mentality in our approach to discussing pressing societal issues. The current climate of verbal sparring on social media, spurred on by digital acquaintances with whom we may never meet in person, looks more like combat than conversation. This is why OSI is passionate about seeing our society recover civil discourse. We do this by creating spaces for polarized voices to come together to find actionable, common-ground solutions to current issues.

Nathan Olver is Vice President and Co-Founder of The Organization for Social Innovation. He is based in West Palm Beach, Florida and has an MS in International Development and Masters of Business Administration.