Republish this content

<h1>Only Bridging Can Heal a World of Breaking</h1>

<p>At a time of heightened polarization and intense inequality in the United States and around the world, social differences run
the risk of being turned into fault lines, and exploited for divide-and-conquer
politics. As political scientists Rose McDermott and Peter K. Hatemi recently
observed, inflammatory us-versus-them rhetoric “instigates neural mechanisms
from the evolutionary desire to be part of the group.” </p>



<p>Diversity can be a great strength, but it is susceptible
to manipulation when not accompanied by community leaders from all backgrounds
willing and able to bridge across difference. The idea of “bridging” provides a
path to healing the practices of “breaking” across communities of difference
that are so prevalent today. </p>



<p>Now
used more broadly, bridging originates in social capital theory. It’s a concept
used to investigate trust and social cohesion, as well as reciprocity and civic
bonds. It describes relationships between and among different groups of people
in society, and is a form of social capital, which examines connections that
connect people across a cleavage that often divides society (such as race,
class, or religion). Bridging occurs when members of different groups reach
beyond their own group to members of other groups. Examples of this would be
moving into integrated neighborhoods or joining sports clubs or places of
worship where people hold different identity markers than oneself. </p>



<p>&nbsp;Several years ago, here at the University of
California, Berkeley, we began to examine bridging through the lens of
“othering and belonging.” “Othering” occurs when a person or group is not seen
as a full member of society, as an outsider or “less than” or inferior to other
people or groups. It happens at an interpersonal level across many dimensions
such as race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and others, but is also
expressed at the group level. When governments and other elites participate in
the othering of certain groups, othering reaches its most dangerous level, and
can lead to violence, and even genocide. </p>



<p>One
of the mechanisms of othering is the practice of breaking—the antithesis of
bridging. Breaking occurs when members of a group not only turn inward (known
as “bonding,” in social capital terms), but also turn against the “outsider”
group or the other. The otherness and threat of the out-group can be used to
build psychological or physical walls. It tells the other, “You are not one of
us. You don’t belong and you should not get the same public resources or
attention and regard that my group gets.” Breaking emerges from a belief that
people who are not part of the favored group are somehow dangerous or unworthy.
It is largely based on fear, and a feeling of insecurity. These emotions may be
grounded on a belief that “those people”—whoever they are—are stealing our
jobs, harming our neighborhoods, or that they pose a threat to our sacred
values and norms. </p>



<p>In
the U.S. political environment today, there are multiple “others.” Immigrants,
Muslims, and people of color are prominent “others,” and our current
administration advances breaking policies and employs divisive rhetoric that
enflames fear of these others. But even well-meaning liberals undermine
bridging and perpetuate othering through strategies such as assimilation. </p>



<p>For
example, the notion of “not seeing difference” or assuming that one group is
just like another, more favored group, can undermine the building of bridges.
Saying that “Muslims are just like Christians even though they attend a mosque
instead of a church” erases any differences, and tries to assimilate the
marginalized group into the dominant one. </p>



<p>Meaningful
bridging—like real integration—must acknowledge, respect, and appreciate
difference as a starting point, not try to erase differences. Bridging requires
more than just acknowledging the other but listening empathically and holding
space for the other within our collective stories. This, of course, is not
easy. As author bell hooks reminds us, bridges get walked on. </p>



<p>There
are different types of bridges. Short bridges require less effort, less risk,
and less vulnerability to erect. Longer bridges are those that require more of
us and our communities. They entail greater risk, but also greater reward. </p>



<p>To
bridge requires strength and empathy, but it does not require that we sacrifice
our values or our identity. It also entails vulnerability, as when Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern responded to New Zealand’s mass shooting by affirming
values of diversity, refuge, and compassion. </p>



<p>Bridging
is so important because only bridging can heal a world of breaking, which is
the dominant practice and discourse today. Breaking not only feeds off
broad-scale social changes and polarization, it also propels them. 

By
imagining together, we can use bridges to hear the other and help construct a
larger more inclusive “we” where no group dominates or is left out.



</p>

<p>This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org">Yes! Magazine</a> at <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/building-bridges/2019/11/11/only-bridging-can-heal-a-world-of-breaking">https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/building-bridges/2019/11/11/only-bridging-can-heal-a-world-of-breaking</a>.</p><link href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/building-bridges/2019/11/11/only-bridging-can-heal-a-world-of-breaking" rel="canonical"/><p>Yes! Magazine is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of ... . Learn more at <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org">Yes! Magazine</a></p><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://www.yesmagazine.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=72100&ga4=G-74QJNNY44Z" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Only Bridging Can Heal a World of Breaking

At a time of heightened polarization and intense inequality in the United States and around the world, social differences run
the risk of being turned into fault lines, and exploited for divide-and-conquer
politics. As political scientists Rose McDermott and Peter K. Hatemi recently
observed, inflammatory us-versus-them rhetoric “instigates neural mechanisms
from the evolutionary desire to be part of the group.”

Diversity can be a great strength, but it is susceptible
to manipulation when not accompanied by community leaders from all backgrounds
willing and able to bridge across difference. The idea of “bridging” provides a
path to healing the practices of “breaking” across communities of difference
that are so prevalent today.

Now
used more broadly, bridging originates in social capital theory. It’s a concept
used to investigate trust and social cohesion, as well as reciprocity and civic
bonds. It describes relationships between and among different groups of people
in society, and is a form of social capital, which examines connections that
connect people across a cleavage that often divides society (such as race,
class, or religion). Bridging occurs when members of different groups reach
beyond their own group to members of other groups. Examples of this would be
moving into integrated neighborhoods or joining sports clubs or places of
worship where people hold different identity markers than oneself.

Several years ago, here at the University of
California, Berkeley, we began to examine bridging through the lens of
“othering and belonging.” “Othering” occurs when a person or group is not seen
as a full member of society, as an outsider or “less than” or inferior to other
people or groups. It happens at an interpersonal level across many dimensions
such as race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and others, but is also
expressed at the group level. When governments and other elites participate in
the othering of certain groups, othering reaches its most dangerous level, and
can lead to violence, and even genocide.

One
of the mechanisms of othering is the practice of breaking—the antithesis of
bridging. Breaking occurs when members of a group not only turn inward (known
as “bonding,” in social capital terms), but also turn against the “outsider”
group or the other. The otherness and threat of the out-group can be used to
build psychological or physical walls. It tells the other, “You are not one of
us. You don’t belong and you should not get the same public resources or
attention and regard that my group gets.” Breaking emerges from a belief that
people who are not part of the favored group are somehow dangerous or unworthy.
It is largely based on fear, and a feeling of insecurity. These emotions may be
grounded on a belief that “those people”—whoever they are—are stealing our
jobs, harming our neighborhoods, or that they pose a threat to our sacred
values and norms.

In
the U.S. political environment today, there are multiple “others.” Immigrants,
Muslims, and people of color are prominent “others,” and our current
administration advances breaking policies and employs divisive rhetoric that
enflames fear of these others. But even well-meaning liberals undermine
bridging and perpetuate othering through strategies such as assimilation.

For
example, the notion of “not seeing difference” or assuming that one group is
just like another, more favored group, can undermine the building of bridges.
Saying that “Muslims are just like Christians even though they attend a mosque
instead of a church” erases any differences, and tries to assimilate the
marginalized group into the dominant one.

Meaningful
bridging—like real integration—must acknowledge, respect, and appreciate
difference as a starting point, not try to erase differences. Bridging requires
more than just acknowledging the other but listening empathically and holding
space for the other within our collective stories. This, of course, is not
easy. As author bell hooks reminds us, bridges get walked on.

There
are different types of bridges. Short bridges require less effort, less risk,
and less vulnerability to erect. Longer bridges are those that require more of
us and our communities. They entail greater risk, but also greater reward.

To
bridge requires strength and empathy, but it does not require that we sacrifice
our values or our identity. It also entails vulnerability, as when Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern responded to New Zealand’s mass shooting by affirming
values of diversity, refuge, and compassion.

Bridging
is so important because only bridging can heal a world of breaking, which is
the dominant practice and discourse today. Breaking not only feeds off
broad-scale social changes and polarization, it also propels them.

By
imagining together, we can use bridges to hear the other and help construct a
larger more inclusive “we” where no group dominates or is left out.