common ground
photo by Bethany Randal
Braving the Wilderness
In her book Braving the Wilderness, Brene Brown describes her own and other's journey that included getting cancelled by a group they had previously felt they belonged to. She describes herself and others who wouldn't give in to group opinion as taking a difficult path toward freedom. They reject "common enemy intimacy" that demands conformity. She notes these characteristics of such people:
Non-conforming to cultural or institutional mandates or norms, thus controversial (i.e., citing free speech as a value)
Have been ignored, criticized, or ousted from traditional news media and other power structures because of not aligning with one tribe or not towing the party line
Commitment to intellectual integrity and learning; open to dialog with alternative viewpoints
Engage in discussion or debate with dignity, with intent to minimize snarky or belittling language
Have done substantial learning in their domain of expertise; does fact checking
Concerned with philosophy and cultural evolution (e.g., interest in information ecology and tribalism)
Do prosocial work; not primarily interested in entertainment or “getting ahead”
Similarly, a New York Times article listed characteristics of cancelled individuals who were at the time defined by challenging the conventional talking points on both the political right and left. The author states the following:
They all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive nonpartisan audiences elsewhere. (para. 9)
politically independent or non-conformist
Those braving the wilderness can lean any direction politically, but they are not afraid to criticize the current institutional functioning of societal pillars, including government and higher education. It's not necessarily easy to categorize them because they don't seem to conform to any party's proscribed views. They generally avoid denigrating personalities and positions, in a way that's becoming a commonplace tribal identifier. In the words of one NYT article:
They’re committed to the belief that setting up no-go zones and no-go people is inherently corrupting to free thought….[and] that the boundaries of public discourse have become so proscribed as to make impossible frank discussions of anything remotely controversial. (para. 53)
Those who refuse to be pressured into the conformity of their tribe want to remain in discussion of culture without stating allegiance to one political position. Even if they lean one direction, they don't necessarily accept the whole party line. They’re willing to face the pressure from those who insist that "you ultimately end up in one voting bloc or another, or you don’t count." They don’t have to keep defending ideologies with the problematic extremes of one tribe or other. They believe in getting to the real work of discussing issues that are relevant, not commenting on every trivial scandal or misstep on the other side. They're not engaging in bothsiderism to avoid criticism. They're trying to be fair.
An interpretation of the Pew Research Center data from political polls exemplifies even-handed critique.
What are their goals?
These non-conformists refuse and evade tidy labels. They aim to influence cultural trends by coming up with solutions that transcend political divides and business-as-usual narratives. These commentators are stepping outside (or have been forcibly ejected from) the traditional institutional structures in order to figure out a workable path forward, sometimes trying to include or adapt ideas that aren’t in the realm of safe and mainstream. They are willing to grapple with complex realities, not simplify discussions to tidy sound bytes. Some are starting to sound like what spiritual teachers have been saying: there is no technological or structural solution for what we face as a society. A shift in consciousness is needed. It won’t be everyone who will get there, obviously, but as Brene Brown suggests, we can get there with a critical mass.