Are there any differences that are simply irreconcilable? Perhaps, but let’s consider some real life events that serve as examples on how to overcome such challenges:

We can start with Nelson Mandela and South African President F. W. de Klerk. After 27 years of political imprisonment world opinion supported Mandela and vilified de Klerk. Emerging from prison, Mandela called de Klerk “…an honorable man.” That had a major effect on de Klerk and the two began to work together to end apartheid.

And what about Shirley Chisholm, the first Black congresswoman and segregationist George Wallace? When Wallace was in the hospital after an attempted assassination, Chisholm prayed at his bedside for his recovery. According to Wallace’s daughter that act caused Wallace to weep and change his stance on racial segregation.

What we learn from these two examples from history is perhaps people who are divide on issues such as gun control, abortion, and other political views can reconcile. But we tend to believe our values are extensions of who we are and when they are threatened, it’s our identity as people that is threatened as well. Typically, we then become less rational and feelings of hate paired with dehumanization can follow.

But we can overcome such reactions by recognizing escalated conflicts do not have to severe our relationships. Shirley Chisholm and Nelson Mandela have demonstrated we can recognize our opponent’s humanity. Each was able to say to their opponent they understood how important their values were to them and their community, but there were also important positions they shared.

In the heat of disagreement we can find commonalities if we focus on the values we share as opposed to the ones that potentially lead to conflict.

Every mediator has heard parties say they refuse to negotiate and how the other party is “totally unreasonable.” That same impasse occurs in family and business disputes, as well as political debates.

I was privileged to have as one of my undergraduate professors Sally Gearhart and have stayed in contact with her over many decades. In the 1970s at San Francisco State University, she developed one of the first women and gender studies programs in the country and worked with Harvey Milk to defeat California’s Proposition 6, which would have banned homosexuals from teaching in public schools. Her reputation is as a leader of the 1970s and 1980s lesbian feminist movement while advocating for animal rights and environmental issues as well.

It would have been easy for her to have been confrontational and say “I won’t budge” and “they’re totally unreasonable.” She wrote about not judging and badgering others, but instead chose to seek the “joining point,” a place where competitors can meet as human beings. She showed that it is possible to speak out, confront, to be involved in struggles without “creating and maintaining enemies.” Logging truckers and environmentalists share the struggle to find work and feed their families. We all share some joining point with even those we have the greatest disagreement but conflicts can be diffused when parties recognize what they have in common.

A film of Sally’s life is in production and will show more of her activism without division.

For information visit: https://www.sallygearhartfilm.com.