Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Grace Zagoria

Can Friendship Cross the Aisle? A College Student’s Take

by

Grace Zagoria (DCI Fellow ’27)

Walking out of American Politics last semester, two friends and I got into a debate: Can you be friends with someone across the aisle? Let’s call these friends Alice and Corinna. The conversation started when I mentioned a friend of mine—we’ll call her Gabriela. “Wait,” Corinna said. “Isn’t she a Trump supporter?” I paused, caught off guard. I knew for a fact that Gabriela wasn’t, but I also didn’t see why that should determine the validity of our friendship.

“No, she’s not,” I said.  “But her friends are,” they insisted. “Helena and Nicole? Aren’t they in YAF?” “Yeah, they are,” I admitted. “But what does that matter?” Alice shook her head. “I just don’t think I’d want to be friends with someone who voted for Trump.” Corinna added, “Yeah, I couldn’t be close with someone who doesn’t believe in my right to exist. I mean, don’t they think all gay people are going to burn in hell?” And just like that, the debate took off.

Fast forward to the next weekend. It was a gorgeous, 70-degree North Carolina spring day, and Davidson’s best and brightest gathered among weathered picnic tables just outside Summit Coffee Outpost—“Nummit,” by Davidson slang—to enjoy the light and the Fleetwood Mac blasting from the Kappa Sigma porch. I imagine that when people look back fondly on their college years, they picture moments like these.

I was sitting at a table with Alice, Corinna, and a few other friends, discussing our plans for the fall semester. Alice would be off to Madrid, Corinna to Sydney, and I’d be off to Buenos Aires. In an instant, Gabriela appeared in the corner of my eye, her blonde curls flickering in the sun. She waved me over to her table, where she sat with Helena and Nicole. I headed over.

The four of us chatted about our weekends, and Helena invited me to a party she was hosting later that evening. Our conversation covered the usual topics college students discuss when they don’t know each other very well—our majors, our summer plans, our goals for the future. Helena, I asked, what are you planning on doing after graduation in May? “I’m moving to D.C.,” she replied promptly.

“Oh, awesome!” I responded, relieved that I didn’t have to ask any follow-up questions about what she’d be doing there or who she was working for. I already knew the answer, but I didn’t want to confirm it then and there. Best to keep it simple, I figured. Our conversation moved on to what we did over spring break. I breathed a sigh of relief.

Here’s the big question for me, though. Am I being hypocritical by avoiding political topics with that group of friends? If I’ve preached to Corinna and Alice that you can be friends with people across the aisle, why am I actively avoiding the subject with Gabriela and company?

Today, American society is more polarized than ever. Surveys have shown that Americans’ animosity toward the opposing political party is higher than it has been in decades, geographic political segregation has increased over the past 10 years,[1] and 4 in 10 Americans would be upset if their child married someone from the opposite political party.[2] It should come as no surprise that nearly 80% of Americans now have “just a few” or no friends at all across the aisle, according to research by Pew.[3] For the remaining 20%, or for the few Americans who do have friends with opposing political viewpoints, what is the line between friendship and ideological differences? Should there be a line at all?

My perspective is that such friendships are crucial in helping repair a social fabric that has been worn down and torn up by complex political questions. On a very basic level, I believe we should treat everyone around us with kindness and compassion, regardless of how different we are—whether those differences are political or not. If you consider all your friends, I’m sure you don’t agree with them on every issue under the sun, but that does not mean you cannot engage with them, or that you shouldn’t discuss your conflicting opinions. While political issues can be incredibly divisive, I would argue that you can have civil discussions with friends despite contrasting views. By that logic, my avoidance tactic with Gabriela, Helena, and Nicole was a cop-out.

That said, I do think there is a significant difference between forcing friendships with those who have contrasting ideological backgrounds and letting relationships form naturally. In other words, friendships should begin organically, and only then should political complications be approached with earnestness, understanding, and a desire to learn. From my standpoint, cutting people off without giving them a chance to make an impression on you or explain their point of view is an injustice—to them and to you. There is more to a person than just their political beliefs, and, in any case, I would reason that the best way to win an argument is to understand the other side.

Opinions expressed on the DCI Blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views or positions of the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/30/opinion/politics/bubble-politics.html

[2] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117232857/americans-have-increasingly-negative-views-of-those-in-the-other-political-party

[3] https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/928209548/dude-i-m-done-when-politics-tears-families-and-friendships-apart

Respect Matters: Why Being Right Isn’t Enough

by

“Harvard is the best university in the United States.”

“Derek Jeter was a great baseball player.”

These words echoed through the Davidson College Philanthropic Hall while a crowd of DCI Fellows adjusted their chairs and focused their attention on their guest speaker of the day: Associate Professor of Philosophy Dan Layman. 

As part of the Fellows’ weekly meeting, we typically dive into topics related to public discourse and deliberative citizenship. This week Dr. Layman introduced two key types of respect for us to consider: appraisal respect and recognition respect.

So, what are these concepts, and what do they have to do with Harvard University and a former shortstop for the New York Yankees?

First, let’s talk about appraisal respect, which is rooted in admiration for someone’s prowess and ability. We’ll take the case of Derek Jeter, and the quote from above. Saying Jeter was a great baseball player is a form of appraisal respect: the speaker is taking the shortstop’s accomplishments – 5 World Series Titles, 14 All-Star Selections, 5 Gold Gloves, and the list goes on – and assessing them based on their apparent value. For this speaker, Jeter’s accomplishments are impressive enough to designate him as a ‘great’ player. The speaker, then, judges the skills and abilities Jeter has demonstrated on the field as things worth celebrating. 

The same thought process applies to the Harvard case. The speaker – after some thought, we’d presume – comes to the conclusion that Harvard is the best university in the U.S. Their exact reasoning here we may not know – it could have something to do with the University having the biggest endowment in the world, its having produced 8 U.S. presidents, or its close association with more than 160 Nobel laureates – but, regardless, the speaker is affording the same type of high regard for the University’s achievements as the previous one did with respect to Derek Jeter. 

Both of these examples are forms of appraisal respect if the speaker is basing them on specific reasons or criteria that justify their appraisal. Such claims do not have to be about institutions or professional athletes; they could also be about ordinary people. One could say “Martina is a good person” and that could also qualify as appraisal respect. If someone asked the speaker to explain their reasoning, they could explain their statement with a response like, “Well, Martina carried my groceries up the stairs for me last week, and then she lent Oskars a textbook for math class, so she meets my criteria for being a good person.” The underlying point is that, especially in deliberative contexts, a speaker should be able to formulate grounds for their appraisals and be ready to share those with others when prompted. 

Here’s the caveat, though. 

What if the speaker were to instead say “Martina is a horrible person. Truly, the absolute worst?”

In that case, it would be pretty clear that the speaker doesn’t have a huge amount of appraisal respect for Martina. But that doesn’t mean they have zero respect for Martina.

That’s where recognition respect – or the notion of respecting another being because, like us, they are another being – comes into play. 

Recognition respect suggests that even if the speaker thinks Martina is a horrible person, they shouldn’t go around and treat her disrespectfully. This is because we recognize Martina as a fellow human being and must afford her a decent amount of consideration, despite whatever failings she may have.

Let’s say Martina is walking down the hall with a slew of books in her arms. There’s a heavy door about to slam in her face, and instead of assisting her, you let it close on her. In the process, she drops all of her things to the floor. 

If she’s gathering her books from the ground and says, “Hey! Why did you let that door slam on me?” and in response you shrug and tell her it is because she hasn’t yet earned your respect, then you’d come out of the situation looking like a complete jerk. Why? Because you haven’t shown the proper degree of recognition respect to Martina. 

Martina actually didn’t need to earn your respect in order for you to hold the door open for her: your recognition that Martina, like you, is another being who deserves consideration –  regardless of how you assess her words or her actions – should be sufficient for you to do so. 

Simple enough, right?

So, what does this have to do with DCI?

Here’s what I’d say: given that D Teams are filled with participants and facilitators who don’t know each other, the idea of appraisal respect may be less relevant in this context. After all, can you truly appraise someone if you met them just minutes ago? Should we judge them on the few words they say as they introduce themselves and share their thoughts on the topic that they may or may not have had a lot of time to think about?

Nevertheless, even if we know nothing about someone’s character, or their achievements, or their background, we do know that this person – like ourselves – is a free and sentient being whose reasons and judgments merit our recognition and, consequently, our fair and careful consideration. 

And, in the context of DCI, such recognition respect is crucially important, and it is why egalitarianism is one of the key deliberative dispositions it encourages participants to adapt. In our meetings we explore some very sensitive subjects – topics that can range from immigration law to reproductive rights – and many participants have perspectives that differ vastly from their counterparts. Even still, the notion of approaching your fellow deliberators with respect and maintaining this consideration – including when the discussion gets heated – is a cornerstone of DCI, and it’s what helps keep difficult conversations going.