The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
James Coltella is a freelance writer and strategic communications professional. He recently graduated from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government with a Master of Public Administration degree. He wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.
My accent as an Englishman in America hasn’t protected me from the whiplash of dating and ghosting. It strikes me that many people prefer to leave silence to do the talking, rather than express an opinion that might not be well received.
Yet ghosting is the epitome of bad manners. Surely as a society, we owe it to each other to be honest, giving closure rather than adding confusion?
Unfortunately, it appears that ghosting isn’t just a phenomenon in dating. It’s everywhere, including in political discourse. In that regard, how honest can we be with each other when the world can so quickly turn on us? Is ghosting just the result of an age in which it is perhaps safer to say nothing?
Encountering Ron Heifetz’s adaptive leadership framework at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, I questioned my whole methodology. I began to see that adding the right amount of heat into a system or conversation catalyzes parties to stop what is described as “work avoidance,” allowing honest and productive discussions to occur. The bravery required isn’t merely about pushing back but also about receiving and holding perspectives that don’t resonate with our views of ourselves.
Exercising not just the right to an opinion but also the duty to listen provided a container in which fruitful discussions could emerge, something epitomized by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild in her book “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.” Hochschild’s deep dive into tea party supporters in Louisiana, who have since become ardent Donald Trump supporters, is fascinating. Revealing hard truths about why they feel so slighted and holding these as real ensured that multiple voices could surface.
It is far too simple just to cancel opinions that don’t fit with our worldview, yet much harder to listen to perspectives that we feel are vile and repugnant. President John F. Kennedy was right when he observed that “too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Unfortunately, supporting the right opinions is now becoming somewhat of a sport, and I was horrified to hear a teenager talk about being ostracized for not liking and sharing a post. Not giving an opinion on the cause in question was certainly to the teen’s detriment. Yet the fear of saying the wrong thing is perhaps just as bad. Where was the container for them in which they could hold safe?
Since moving here from England, I have learned that America is not one country but a collection of different identities — 11 if writer Colin Woodard in his book “American Nations” is to be believed, ranging from what he terms as Yankeedom in the North, Tidewater in the East, New France in the South and the Left Coast in the West. As such, how is it possible to unite thought, if not to recognize that we can hold together differences of opinion?
It appears America has drifted so far to the margins of political debate that the center ground of “E pluribus unum” holds no more.
Yet the America I have always loved is one in which you can visit the grocery store without locking the house and a place where after a snowstorm, people go out to clear their path — a simple but important act of collective endeavor. America is at heart a country of community, whose strength is in its ability to rally together and not just on events like July Fourth.
This country has always had a voice but ensuring it holds multiple voices is key to stopping it from tearing itself apart. Ralph Waldo Emerson, father of the American Renaissance, said that “people seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.” Therefore, when we are next tempted to assert a hasty opinion or conversely opt to ghost someone, maybe we should instead engage in more generative conversations, offering up a container for discussions to take place.
Understanding how both parties feel ensures that we can move forward with a promise of collaborative visions of the future — visions of a country that doesn’t just offer the opportunity of a new world but also one that creates a world of new opportunities.
