Have you felt or heard things about social division? Seems a common topic these days, one made worse (I opine) by those pointing out the problem gleefully contributing to it. Of course, that’s how a click-driven system works. Careful analysis doesn’t get clicks.

A catchy opening, say of this GROUP doing THAT, drawn the necessary attention in a socialized info system. Don’t trust or believe me. Do not. Instead look at online headlines and count how many use assignment by group to draw attention to its material. Does not matter if the group exists or contentions about it are accurate. But a group contention absolutely needs to be there to bring attention. In itself, there’s the division.  

Again, don’t believe or trust me. Simply look to see how many times we’re expected to believe something exists when it does not. A claim of community is common. OK, where does the X, Y or Z community meet, who are its officers and where is its official position? If the group never or seldom gathers as Group W, how then does it make decisions or appoint a speaker?

But then, if you’re a click-seeker the use of a nonexistent group voice is pure-perfect because you can have it say anything suited to your contentions.  

Consider this way. Take the group “Workers of northern Minnesota.” We all know the area has workers, but does the group actually exist? If so, how would 100,000 members gather to then speak in one voice? Was someone (or someones) elected to be the voice of all? If so, is the voice of all an elected or official dictator-ruler? You can safely bet, I’ll wager heavily, that democracy is noisily contentious and lacks one voice for all. Voters are many voices, aren’t they? If we bemoan division and contention we’re disliking democracy because we find it easier for one voice to have the final say. In friendship, family, neighborhood and so on it will never be that way because while some might want to be the boss the majority don’t care to be bossed.  

My view. Clamor and opposition are part of democracy as it is part of much social activity. It’s good. If I were boss would I think of everything? Impossible. Others make useful contributions and insights. Leave it to one and guess what? Don’t have to tell you, do I? The one-way has a tail of consequences that no amount of ignoring, excusing or explaining will remove. Eventually the tail becomes too much. You can easily find examples.  

Divisiveness in society isn’t bad of itself. Not bad to have a Somali neighborhood or a separate Italian area. It would become objectionable if one sought to wipe out the other. To an extent, then, things depend on what’s done with separation or division. How far does the division go and what is its goal?

I can compare to the difference between constructive (desiring to be helpful) criticism and the other kind.   Division, different points of view and needs, is inescapable and also necessary. Our personal traits and identifications aren’t universal-global. Each of us is a particular separated from others even when we share similar societal background, language and so on. But I don’t think we are or can sustain being a people or nation by asserting differences. An advocate or partisan focuses on and stresses separate distinctions. That’s fine. Got to make the case for your position. A citizen (like a parent or leader) has to take on a wider view. A citizen accepts a sense of responsibility beyond their personal standing. Consider. What’s good practice in forested Minnesota may not be of similar use in an arid state. Is one better than the other? No. But the difference between a temperate forest and a desert is irreconcilable, meaning they can’t in a bigger scheme (a citizen’s view) be treated the same. They can be equally important but not the same. When considered, the role of citizen is more involved and difficult than that of the advocate arguing, say, for the role of the desert.  

The advocate or partisan has the easier task, and don’t they know it and show it by loud cries at every opportunity. Taint easy or appealing to be a citizen, leader or parent in a house full of screamers. In a classroom (think back) of thirty how many disrupters did it take to upset the cart for twenty nine others? When ten percent, a quarter or half of those present feel it’s prime time to assert their agenda you can be sure the class is over. Over and done.

Thing is, though, if the role of respectful, considering citizen is not respected, what’s left is a pack of brawling minorities. Each and every marginalized whatever has a valid point. But what hold them together? I can all but guarantee the binder won’t be Universal Union because the big global players won’t and don’t respect fluff for substance. Arms open Universal Union meets armed adversary and who’ll take the day?  

I don’t pretend to have solutions. But I do believe we’d better pay a lot more attention to civics and citizenship than seems likely in a geography overloaded with screaming special interests.   In particular I’m skeptical of any special interest claim. Let’s agree it’s difficult to be sexually or ethnically different. Here? Yes. In India? Yes. In China? Yes. To be a Gypsy in Europe? Yes. A minority faces many difficulties. But what we leave out by saying and focusing on that is the other side. Other side? The other side: no matter who or what, None Of It Is Easy. Taking on the long-term commitment of parenthood isn’t easier than being a drag queen, non-English speaker or follower of Satan?  

Divisiveness (not ordinary divisions) is a problem. It’s something felt, as in when I hesitated to follow through with a notion to start a writer-American literature program on the East Range. The thought of flak stopped me surely as Queer Beer assassinated a once-dominant brand.