Do you want to lower divisiveness? Did you ever notice in the current psychological climate that the word “anti-” is popular and in common usage? The use of the word “anti” automatically brings in so much implicit emotion when we use it or hear it, that there is no time for thought. We can have fear if we think it may relate to someone’s position about us, if they are anti-us, or we can have aggression if we are speaking against someone or their position on a topic, if we are anti-them. “They are anti-Martian!!! How dare they!! Martians are good people!!” and it gets worse. “I hate them!! To hell with them!” And then there is the term “pro.” “I’m pro-Venus!” It gets worse. “Mars is terrible! F*ck Martians.” These emotional terms cause divisiveness. Negative emotional contagion thrives on this. When we have just emotions like this, there is no thinking of pros and cons. Emotional contagion spreads the turmoil and divisiveness that is abundant now, and emotions don’t think!
For example, we either put ourselves on one side of the argument or the other because when we use these terms (anti- and pro-) we have to decide almost automatically if we are for or against the particular topic at hand. But we really don’t, it is the emotion that makes us decide quickly, the implicit emotion you feel inside yourself, if you feel threatened or alienated or feel that you could join a side of supporters. Instead of thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of each side, as we should, these labels automatically bring up emotions. Each side likely has some good points. But your reaction to this is probably an emotional one. “F*ck them.” Then we can’t see the good points of the other side. When all this occurs, the emotion that we feel is likely implicit, that is, inside yourself and not necessarily experienced by yourself as being a strong emotion inside you at the time. But, if we are honest with ourselves, we would realize that if we say we are swearing and are pro-something or anti-something that we are usually feeling some strong emotion inside ourselves that drive your comments and reactions, particularly if it is a known controversial issue. You are just trying to get the emotion out, and this can be divisive and destructive.
Let’s take some examples. When we do this watch for any feelings of emotion internally or a decision to quickly react. If we hear that someone is “anti-Semitic” or an “anti-vaxxer” we will often tend to quickly and impulsively react to that person or that position the person is taking, by taking sides, either within our own thinking, or outwardly, in conversation. One side or the other, quickly, whichever side we are on. Emotional and impulsive decisions means they are made without thinking of advantages and disadvantages or weaknesses and strengths of each side and then deciding or seeing if there is a midpoint, for example maybe you are neither anti-Semitic nor pro-Semitic. You can lean to one side or the other without being at the extreme, which is what “anti” or “pro” is. That’s what we need, good thinking about things, starting with a blank slate instead of preconceived ideas. A similar dynamic is likely to occur if we hear the phrase “pro” being spoken, for example, “pro-choice” or “pro-American”. Some of us will quickly bring in the opposite, for example, using the words “anti” or “pro” to state our opposite position, like “anti-American” or the opposite pro, like “pro-life”. Then you can predict an argument may ensue, as the internal, implicit emotion is likely to rise to the surface as the discussion continues. Or, if we agree and share the position of the other, since the emotion is close to the top when those words are used, a closeness or friendship may result.
Did you feel some internal impulse to react to some of these points as you were reading? None of these comments is designed to blame either side for the issue, because the term “blame” is also likely to elicit some anger, guilt, or fear, putting us on the offensive or defensive. There is no blame here. There is only cause-and-effect. Although a person who starts a conversation saying someone is “anti-Semitic” or an “anti-vaxxer” may start the conversation off in a way likely to produce some conflict, they were probably not intentionally, consciously starting a conflict, as the terms “anti” and “pro” have become commonplace and likely not associated with emotion consciously, although it probably is subconsciously provoking a conflict by using emotion.
One of the causes of divisiveness is fear, according to Schneider, quoted in the American Psychological Association article by Waldroff (2021) is because of “individual and collective trauma that associates with a profound sense of insignificance.” In this state, he says, people may “feel that they don’t matter” and fear extinguished or annihilated. This is an unconscious fear but, in my view, subconsciously it relates to a fear of being insignificant or ignored, because it usually relates to a topic or issue that people regard as an important part of their identity. So they will feel threat quite easily and will likely interpret rejection of their stand as rejection of themselves as a person when it is not.
Personal experiences of internal or implicit emotion felt inside oneself often occur subconsciously or unconsciously, that is, beyond someone’s awareness. Some people may be surprised if they use a term like “anti” to describe their position that the other person in the conversation may get defensive or begin an argument. To prevent further emotionality from rising to the surface, it is best to avoid labels like “pro” or “anti” and instead describe situations or behavior of people that are consistent with your position but that are less likely to arouse emotion in the other person. And if it continues to produce an antagonistic emotion from the other person, resist the temptation to reply with another label and continue the discussion by describing situations or behavior, probably relating to your position. For example, you could say “What about people who…” and describe someone’s behavior when that person seems to be a reasonable person engaging ion reasonable behavior who just acts differently from the description your antagonistic conversation partner is offering. This puts them into a cognitively dissonant position where they may feel some discomfort without realizing it, because that person may associate their target people as being unreasonable or belligerent.
The use of terms like “anti-“ or “pro-“ subconsciously create divisiveness, for example, when we label someone as being “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It may be that we are defining the person by the label when that would be a very restrictive definition and lead to arguments. You may say, “but what if they are pro-choice and you don’t agree? Should you accept it or ignore it?” Perhaps, or you could rephrase it, even to yourself or to others, as saying that they support a woman’s right to their personal choice, rather than use the phrase “pro-choice” and then say you take a position that supports the right of a fetus to be born, within yourself, and ignore their stance on the abortion issue. They may be raising it to antagonize you and you don’t have to fall for it. Just the terms “anti” or “pro” will elicit strong emotion, and a description will often elicit a weaker emotion, at least not as strongly. And then the term “anti-“ or “pro” becomes like a brand name, as you identify yourself, for e.g., as “pro-life” or “anti-vax”, because they roll off the tongue easier than giving description of your belief. And then it becomes your band when it really shouldn’t be a brand.
Your position doesn’t have to color the whole approach to this person. Finding some things that are in common between the two people will limit the divisiveness. For example, they may both be fans of a particular sports team, both like music by a certain artist, both like cats, or both be from a certain region. These are just examples. There are many things we could have in common. Pick some. That could lead into a more congenial discussion, with stories to tell. It would be an asset for you to lead the discussion in this direction, even if changing the topic, assuming the other person hasn’t read this, or be familiar with such an approach. You will lessen divisiveness. If they have it should be easier. In this way you work on lessening the divisiveness and strengthen the unity, congeniality, or humanity within people. It doesn’t mean you have to become close buddies, but it may prevent tension and division.