How Can We Bridge the Differences that Divide Us?
Our second unit for this course will be a researched argument answering the question “How can we bridge the differences that divide us? Our goals this unit are to use research to back up a position and to argue a position thoughtfully, with the goal of starting a conversation. We’re also working within a limited topic, so another goal is finding an angle in a provided set of readings. Let's look at the basic requirements of the essay:
· 8-11 pages, typed, double-spaced, 12-pt. Times New Roman font.
· Utilizes a minimum of eight sources. At least two of these sources should be academic (scholarly, peer-reviewed), and you should aim to use a variety of sources—journal, magazine, newspaper, book, interview.
· Follows MLA or APA guidelines for format, in-text citations, and bibliography.
· Remember that you are not“preaching to the choir,” nor are you trying to force readers to agree with you. You want them to take your argument seriously. Your goal is conversation not conversion. Your tone and argument should reflect this.
· You may choose your audience; be prepared to explain who you are writing to & why.
· You will choose a particular element of differences and how they divide us to focus on - the readings in They Say/I Sayhave some great examples.
· Your essay will argue something to do with differences (e.g., gender, race, politics, socio-economic status) in our American culture and possible solutions. Be very aware of the scope and nuance of your argument. Many of the examples we read are arguing a position, but they’re not entirely “for” or “against.” They take a strong position, but one that is quite specific. Your argument will likely follow a similar pattern.
· Worth 200 points—see the rubric (on 2nd page) for more on how this essay will be graded.
There are five major strategies writers use to write position papers (adapted from Reading Critically, Writing Well). These are worth considering in depth here, though they are all covered in They Say/I Say:
1. Presenting the Issue: Writers need to contextualize the debate. Remember that an argument must be arguable, so you’ll need to present the various sides on the issue.
2. Asserting a Clear, Unequivocal Position: This is, in essence, your thesis, and an argument is not complete without one.
3. Arguing Directly for the Position: This is where you back up your argument with reasons. Facts are the best source, though statistics, examples and anecdotes, and expert opinions and analogies are other ways of doing this.
4. Counterarguing Objections and Opposing Positions: Writers anticipate readers’ objections and address them. This can include concession or refutation.
5. Establishing Credibility: If a writer isn’t seen as credible, readers will likely not give the argument serious consideration.
Bridging the Political Differences
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Bridging the Political Differences
More people are becoming stressed and anxious because of the political temperatures. In democracies, people are accorded the opportunity to choose the political representation that they desire. Often, personal decisions are not universal. With political parties with different ideologies in place, divisions must inevitably arise in the political process. However, debates are still ripe on just how much divisions can be tolerated in any mature democratic system. That is because political divisions can trigger harm to the growth of a nation. Bridging differences triggered by political trends is an option in which most people should be willing to participate, bearing the challenges of opposing options. This paper exploits divisions in society that are politically triggered and strategies that are exploitable to bridge the gaps initiated by political tussles. Creating strategies to bridge political gaps is vital in positively driving the nation through its social, economic, and technological developments.
Bridging the gaps triggered by political differences should begin with understanding the gaps and any value that they could bring to society. Political gaps are rooted in the tenets of leadership systems in most parts of the world (Jacob & Myers, 2014). Any nation whose political system stems from democracy understands that there is an element of difference that comes with such systems. In democratic systems, people have the freedom and autonomy to make political decisions. In such systems, individuals are presented with ideas that they can choose to accept or ignore. Choosing one ideological path in a democracy implies abolishing the other part (Roberts, 2020). The interpretation of abolition or choosing political paths differs greatly with individuals.
It is important to note that differences instigated by politics bear significant value to society. Primarily, it is through the differences that people can understand the choices that they have. That is, political differences tell the populace what they would be choosing and what they would be abolishing (Jacob & Myers, 2014). In some political systems such as dictatorships, people do not have the liberty to choose what they feel is right for their future. Understandably, dictatorial nations are superficially united than their democratic counterparts. However, it is highly debatable if the differences in dictatorships are what people want (Fisher, 2020). The political differences are also vital in auditing the government. Governments can become reckless if they are not accorded proper scrutiny. In ideal bipartisan systems, the divisions allow for the government’s scrutiny to fuel the achievement of the promises posed by the government during campaigns (Moskowitz & Jenkins, 2004). Ultimately, recovering from political divisions is a show of maturity. By overcoming political challenges, a nation can consider itself viable enough to bargain in the global platform. However, questions remain on the viability of politically instigated differences even with their benefits to a nation.
Multiple ills come with political differences that require addressing as soon as they are realized. A nation is like a business organization. While it may have different parts and divisions, all those parts and divisions work towards achieving a similar organizational goal (Moskowitz & Jenkins, 2004). In the context of a nation, many people differ in terms of origins, cultures, and social classes, among others. Such differences should only be a platform for instilling innovativeness and growth. However, in places where political differences are futile and bear no meaningful direction, the differences can only lead to the destruction of the growth profile. Political differences also create animosity in nations that should, however, showcase love for all the people (Jacob & Myers, 2014). Divisiveness is one aspect that creates violence. People who do not feel represented enough in a government normally intend to retaliate. That can happen through violent demonstrations, destruction of property, loss of lives, and looting that are not good for socio-economic growth. Ultimately, political divisions may also lead to the skewed distribution of resources. The government should always be responsible for all its citizens. However, that cannot happen in cases where the government leans towards a particular population segment. While politics is a vital component of a nation, it should be remembered that it can construct or destroy a nation.
Multiple trends imply the need to bridge the gaps instigated by political differences. Principally, it has been noted that the differences instill more challenges than good to societies that embrace them (Hero, Zaslavsky, & Blendon, 2017). The challenges are poised to escalate if no changes are instituted. Political scientists’ findings indicate that more and more people are becoming either extremely conservative or extremely liberal in their political decisions. In the U.S., that can be witnessed in the congress where leaders seem to affiliate their ideas with the political systems rather than the desire to assist in the growth of the nation. Political differences are also diluting the identity of the people. It is indicated that most Americans currently peg their identity on their political affiliations than on any other important facets of culture. Even more devastating is how politics is diluting the tenets of national integration. Currently, around 60% of Americans who are strongly affiliated with specific political parties would want their children to marry within their political affiliations (Margolis & Sances, 2017). That is a big difference from 1958 when 72% of the nation noted that they did not care about the people their children chose to marry as long as those children were happy (Hero, Zaslavsky, & Blendon, 2017). It is notable that in the U.S., political violence is fairly limited if compared to other nations. However, a large number of Americans take pleasure in watching people from opposing political factions harmed. An escalation of the trends instigated by political differences could steer the nation into even more harm soon.
Multiple strategies have been developed to bridge the gaps, and the nation should be motivated to instill the strategies. The first insight should be directed to the contact theory as postulated by Gordon Allport, a social psychologist (Dutton & Lynn, 2014). Allport insists that intergroup contact remains a viable aspect in the fight against unhealthy political differences. Intergroup contacts imply inclusivity where people interact freely with people they believe to be outgroups. In the confines of that theory, exposure to people that are considered outgroups helps in a deeper understanding of their desires. With enhanced contacts between warring groups, it becomes easy to see the element of differences for both parties. That can easily help in revitalizing the perceptions that people have against each other.
Questions are still raised on how to contact theory can trigger closer contacts among people who show no empathy for each other. To answer that question, nations are advised to reverse their operations and mirror the structures of contemporary business organizations (Dutton & Lynn, 2014). Like nations, businesses have people from different cultural, political, and economic backgrounds. However, even amidst their diversity, the organizations still accord them duties that fuel the overall growth within those same entities. Diversity has been praised as an element of creativity and innovation. That is, the diversity that people showcase either culturally or politically i...