FREE! Sign up to receive a free copy of “Restorative Powers of Community Support Systems”

DAVID B. BOHL

Relinquishee, Adoptee, MPE
Author, Speaker.
Person in long-term recovery.

Linkedin Facebook

You Can’t Heal in a Culture That Treats Disagreement as Dehumanization

In an era of deepening political polarization, social media-fueled outrage, and rising political violence, civility is no longer a soft virtue or optional courtesy. It is a practical necessity for common and  self-governing survival.

Nearly half of Americans say public behavior has grown ruder since the COVID-19 pandemic, and roughly a third report regularly witnessing rude conduct in daily life. Affective polarization—viewing political opponents not merely as wrong but as morally inferior—has intensified. Political conversations feel more stressful, friendships fracture over politics, and a frightening percentage of Americans now entertain the idea that violence may be needed to “get the country back on track.” Recent high-profile assassinations and attacks, including the killing of Charlie Kirk and other targeted political violence, underscore how quickly dehumanization can escalate.

Civility is not the same as politeness or agreement. As the Institute for Civility defines it, civility is “claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs, and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.” It means treating fellow citizens as full human beings who possess inherent dignity, even when their views are radically different. Conflict mediator John Sarrouf has observed that once people stop seeing others as fully human, “it is easier to do harm to them. That’s how political violence happens. That’s how civil wars start. That’s how genocides begin.”

Democracy in our Republic depends on this baseline of mutual regard. It cannot function solely through laws and elections; it requires citizens willing to debate, compromise, and coexist across difference. The George W. Bush Institute has emphasized that democracy relies on civil discourse and respect for fellow citizens precisely because free societies protect the right to disagree without resorting to hostility or violence. When that norm erodes, rights become contingent on who holds power, and the system itself grows fragile.

Evidence shows civility is not merely aspirational. A 2023 *Nature Human Behaviour* study found that anonymous cross-party conversations on a mobile platform substantially reduced polarization, with the strongest effects linked to the civility of the dialogue itself. Participants who encountered more civil language from their counterparts showed greater depolarization. Broader research on bridging interventions consistently finds that reminding people of shared identities, correcting exaggerated perceptions of opponents, and fostering respectful exchange can lower animosity and, in some cases, support for undemocratic practices.

The stakes extend beyond politics. Polarization acts as a “hyper-problem” that makes other urgent challenges—climate adaptation, public health, economic stability—harder to address because it short-circuits the negotiation and compromise required for collective action. Societies that lose the capacity for civil disagreement do not become freer; they become more coercive, litigious, and prone to conflict.

Restoring civility begins with ordinary choices: listening long enough to understand an opposing view before responding, refusing to flatten complex people into caricatures, and modeling restraint in public and private spaces. It is difficult, especially when incentives reward outrage. Yet the alternative—continued dehumanization—is not sustainable. As history and contemporary research both indicate, the survival of a pluralistic democracy depends less on the perfection of our arguments than on our willingness to remain in relationship with those who reject them.

This is particularly important for people healing from addiction and mental health challenges. Recovery depends on environments that support emotional regulation, honest connection, and reduced shame rather than constant conflict. Research consistently identifies interpersonal conflict—alongside negative emotional states—as one of the most reliable predictors of relapse. When everyday interactions are marked by contempt, dehumanization, or zero-sum hostility, they erode the stability people in recovery are working to build. Approaches such as assertive or nonviolent communication have been used in treatment precisely because they help restore empathy, rebuild trust, and interrupt cycles of blame and isolation that often accompany substance use and mental health struggles.

Recovery fellowships and peer support groups have long recognized that individual healing thrives only when groups maintain mutual respect and unity. The ability to disagree without degrading another person’s dignity is not abstract; it is the practical condition that allows people to stay in relationship, make amends, practice humility, and receive support without constant threat of attack. A broader culture of civility lowers the ambient stress and social friction that can otherwise undermine the hard work of recovery, making it more possible for people to sustain the relationships and self-respect on which lasting healing depends.

 

addiction addiction recovery adopted adoptee adoption alcoholism bluemind Coaching coronavirus covid-19 covid19 family fostered grief healing centered engagement naam NAAM18 naam19 newreality orphan recovery recovery capital recovery coaching recovery management Relinquishee relinquishment resilience sober soberlife sobriety spirituality trauma trauma informed care

Recent Post

relinquishment and addiction
Publisher
Amazon