Sitting in the second row of her 10th grade social studies class, junior Claudia Wolff De Tourreil was accustomed to difficult conversations. As part of the Social Justice pathway, the class often focused on debating current events. Students were guided through approaching controversial subjects, even when the class was divided in their opinions. Still, there were moments where Wolff De Tourreil noticed a strained atmosphere in the room — when people began to be emotionally driven in their dialogue.

Despite her own opinions, Wolff De Tourreil found an importance in genuinely listening to each perspective. She attempted to remain factual in the face of disagreement and explain her own ideas with careful phrasing.

“I had to try and put my own thoughts and feelings aside in order to try and understand how each person viewed the situation,” she said.

During these interactions, Wolff De Tourreil realized how necessary it was to learn how to converse about sensitive topics.

“(The experiences) showed me that even if people disagree, they can still have respectful conversations and express their opinions,” she said.

Digital Whirlpool

Both the struggle for meaningful public discourse and the deepening of societal division are not new phenomena. They have existed for centuries and played a major role in historical events such as the American Civil War, the World Wars and the long battle for Civil Rights. In more recent years, however, the rise of digital platforms have reshaped the ways in which people communicate, debate and interact with each other.

Historically, societal division was rooted in geographical factors, political ideologies and socioeconomic status. Now, technology has created a large online space where information can be transmitted within a few clicks, increasing the opportunity for both connection and division. As the methods used to navigate sensitive topics have adapted, understanding how to engage in difficult conversations has become critical to communicating in an increasingly fragmented world.

A 2024 Pew Research Center study observed that around 54% of Americans at least “sometimes” source their news from social media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube and X. The shift from traditional media outlets to digital platforms has altered the way information is spread, providing individuals with immediate access to a wide variety of perspectives. However, these changes also have significant implications on the way people address conversations on potentially controversial topics.

As more digital platforms proliferate across the internet, so does the amount of misinformation. According to a 2023 article in Journal of Communication, the problem of audience activity — the choice consumers have to expose themselves to content that reinforces their pre-existing views — has intensified. This selective exposure, exacerbated by the social media algorithm, has made it increasingly difficult for individuals to confront conflicting viewpoints in a constructive manner. Psychology teacher Warren Collier attributes the growing division between conflicting groups to the rise of digital platforms and an increase in the number of news outlets.

With more people both releasing and consuming content on various sites — not just through the radio or TV, but by scrolling through Instagram or other social media — there is a vast amount of information circulating the internet. When faced with several sources and conflicting perspectives, Collier says that, instead of critically evaluating information, many people lean on their personal judgement to distinguish the truth.

“Unfortunately, we’re not very good at judging what is factual and what is misinformation,” he said. “And usually what happens is confirmation bias.”

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, recall or favor information that reinforces one’s beliefs, dismissing anything that might go against it. Social media, where the algorithm primarily exists to deliver content users will interact with, plays a role in amplifying this bias. As a result, engaging with posts that align with a specific view will trigger the algorithm to search for more similar content, creating a loop of reinforcement based on personal beliefs. These “echo chambers” — as they are often dubbed in studies — can lead to stereotypical assumptions about different social and minority groups which also play a part in determining what a user recognizes as truthful or false.

“Whenever I hear something that sounds like something I agree with, I am more likely to (retain) it and more likely to believe it,” Collier said. “The opposite is also true, that I am more likely to forget and ignore the things that disconfirm my beliefs. So if I see this one news source over here, and they’re giving me information that I already agree with or abide with, then I’m more likely to think that it’s more trustworthy.”

These patterns of selective exposure often lead individuals to gravitate towards like-minded communities, whether it be by scrolling through a single-minded comment section or chatting on an online forum. Here, ideas continue to be reinforced or even radicalized, a motion known in psychology as “group polarization.”

“(Group polarization) can happen in small, innocent ways,” Collier said. “If I’m a part of a fan club (about) Star Wars and I talked to other Star Wars fans about how much we love Star Wars, then we start to think Star Wars is the best thing ever. Our thoughts have become more extreme. And the same thing can happen for political issues, and religious issues and social issues.”

As a result, a lack of common ground emerges. Groups of people with opposing viewpoints become further separated and isolated, beginning to regard each other with a stronger disdain. Language between them becomes less constructive, more derogatory and further contributes to a system of dehumanization. University of California, Berkeley Director of Community, Climate and Culture Erika Weissinger believes this process further entrenches division and obstructs the opportunity for intercommunication, planting seeds of animosity.

“Anytime you’re ‘othering’ people or you’re dehumanizing people, you aren’t trying to bridge,” she said. “You’re not trying to understand where the other group is coming from. (That process) creates fear and division, and then the last thing you want to do is talk to somebody who you think is a violent, dangerous person out to get you and out to steal from you.”

Another barrier to having these important conversations lies in mixed reactions concerning a generational shift towards the idea of “political correctness.” While some view political correctness as a necessary tool to promote respect and sensitivity, others see it as a restriction to open dialogue.

A 2024 article by the American Psychological Association emphasized the importance of using precise and thoughtful language, given that “it is important to be aware of how language reflects a complex history and how (insensitive) terms can reinforce inequity, stigmatize people and even dehumanize groups.”

However, some Americans believe the push for “correctness” has gone too far. A 2020 Pew survey stated only 58% of American people believe calling someone out on social media is more likely to hold someone accountable rather than punish someone who doesn’t deserve the backlash. In the same survey, 55% said many take offensive content online too seriously while 42% said offensive content is often brushed off as “not a big deal.”

The idea of “Cancel Culture” has become prominent in the last couple of decades, and with social media, the speed at which information reaches a large amount of people has increased with its influence on them. While it can serve as a tool for social accountability, even empowering marginalized groups, it can often tread the line between bringing justice and igniting hate trains.

Weissinger acknowledges that choosing one’s words is important, but notices the specific term “political correctness” can lose the meaning, even becoming problematic in certain instances.

“When people use the term ‘political correctness,’ there’s a certain condescension, especially when it’s coming from the (politically) right,” she said. “(People assume it says) we must follow all these rules of discourse, and it sidetracks the point of the conversation. Sometimes the word ‘political correctness’ is used instead of the idea of just choosing words thoughtfully and carefully so that they don’t hurt people.”

The current climate, especially in digital spaces, has made conversations even more difficult. A 2022 Pew Research Center report said 69% of Americans believe that the impact of the internet and social media has made people less civil in the way they talk about politics. 65% think these platforms have made people more divided in their political opinions.

Weissinger suggests that people should be mindful of how their words impact others rather than basing them on a political term.

“If I could use a term that you understand and saying that doesn’t hurt you, why wouldn’t I choose that word?” she said. “Why would I choose a word that I know is going to make you flinch and feel pain and feel othered if there’s a word I could choose that’s neutral?”

Encouraging Empathy

Weissinger acknowledges that “cancelling” occurs on both sides of politics — rather than just the more liberal side — and is something everyone involved must take responsibility for. In another perspective, she sees it as a notion that has the potential to create a lack of feeling and understanding between people, heightening fear of addressing difficult conversations in the first place.

“What if, instead of the term ‘cancel culture,’ we say ‘cutting ourselves off from empathy for somebody who’s made a mistake’?” she said. “Because, I think we all make mistakes, and keeping our lines of empathy and compassion open, even when somebody says something that is hurtful or harmful, is just a really essential part of keeping ourselves together as a society and as a community.”

In Stanford psychology professor Jamil Zaki’s book The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World, he explores how empathy is critical for bridging social divides and how it can be cultivated in society today. He highlights the power of connecting with others despite disagreement and emphasizes that one must open themselves to new perspectives in order to face their own biases.

In a 2019 article Zaki authored for Berkeley’s Greater Good Magazine, he wrote: “We are increasingly tribal, and sometimes view outsiders not as human beings but as symbols of ideas and groups we fear and hate. We might hear about thousands of people affected by a disaster or civil war, but think of them only as faceless statistics, without any way to access their emotions.”

He also encourages people to build their empathy through meditation, friendship and listening to stories — adding life and emotion to the statistics that one may glance at once and then forget. He writes, “empathy dissolves when we see the world in terms of ‘us and them,’ but it recovers just as quickly when we return to ‘you and I.’”

Skills and Lessons

As a response to the stress and confusion of the 2024 elections, Weissinger started the Constructive Dialogue Initiative. As a part of this effort, she piloted a class last school year aimed at encouraging students to learn how to approach difficult conversations: Constructive Dialogue in Public Policy. The class attempted to find a balance point between a “safe space” and “place of meaningful dialogue.”

Throughout her teaching, Weissinger read chapters with her class from Monica Guzman’s I Never Thought of It That Way. She emphasized a few main ideas: intentionality, deep listening and curiosity. There was a focus on mentality: If one does not enter a conversation with the intent to engage and talk, the conversation is meaningless in the first place. Coming from a place of trust and giving the conversation time and respect are all techniques that work towards more successful outcomes.

Berkeley graduate student Chip Moore, who participated in the class, felt he learnt how to enter situations with a better mentality.

“This class helped me become more intentional about creating space for different perspectives — especially when emotions run high or the issues are deeply personal,” he said. “I’ve learned to ask better questions, to pause before reacting and to frame conversations in ways that invite trust and vulnerability, not just agreement.”

Weissinger also underlines the importance of curiosity — having the interest to learn about another person without dismissal or defensiveness.

“First starting with knowing that this is something you actually want to do, you’re making a decision: ‘I want to be engaging in a conversation that’s meaningful, that’s going to bring me closer to this person, where I’m not going to come away angering them or being angry myself,’” she said.

For Berkeley graduate student Kirsta Hackmeier, the class was an opportunity to open her mind and challenge her pre-existing truths.

“Everyone likes to think that they are a completely logical person, and that strongly held beliefs are rooted in objective facts,” she said. “However, it’s usually the case that our deepest beliefs are reflective of a conscious or subconscious value system that we have selected facts and figures to match. This is true regardless of political ideology — I see it in myself even — and is not necessarily even a bad thing. It’s just something to be aware of in your own discourse and in that of those with whom you disagree.”

Although communication can seem daunting, especially about issues where one may feel strong emotional attachment to, Weissinger urges people to offer forgiveness and kindness to each other.

“Shutting people out and publicly flogging them in the virtual town square creates a different kind of problem,” she said. “I want to live in a world where people can learn from their mistakes, can apologize and don’t have to be branded with a scarlet letter for the rest of their digital lives because of the mistake that they made.”