By Dr. Denise R. Ames
I remember reading Charles Dickens’ historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, in my high school English class many years ago. 
This memorable quote opens the book: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…”
At the time, I wondered how all of these different emotions could be expressed at the same time. Now I realize that we are expressing many different emotions all simultaneously—anger, fear, hope, despair, concern, love, and hate. These emotions are not necessarily rational responses to events but bubble up from our deep core of being to burst forth.
Our country was built on a myth: “Work hard, play by the rules and you can achieve the American Dream,” I bought into this myth. I worked hard very hard. As baby boomers, my husband and I built and sold six houses in our early years of marriage, along with our other jobs. It was physically demanding work but we were able to accrue a nice nest egg from our endeavors.
I taught my Gen-X children the same values. They had challenging jobs as teenagers like cleaning the lard barrel at Hardees, “walking beans” to get weeds out on hot summer days, babysitting for long stretches, and cleaning houses.
“walking beans”
My children grew up expecting they would achieve the same lifestyle level as I had, but from their experiences they knew it would take dedicated effort and a college education. They learned to be resilient adults. They were able to overcome setback, adversity, and figuring things out on their own. The lessons have stuck with them.
But from my readings and observations, I am learning that Millennials and Gen Z have different expectations about the future. As I see it, they are expecting a similar lifestyle but somehow missing the connection between working hard and achieving rewards. Because of the implications of the American Dream, the current generation assumes that they can have a similar lifestyle as their parents. But the question is how to acquire these expectations without the often boring and repetitive hard work. They have figured out a way.
Along comes the political philosophy of democratic socialism. The politicians promise 
that the government can provide many of the life’s comforts with little effort from recipients. Free college education, reimbursement of student loan debt, free health care, well-paying and secure jobs, subsidized day care, and a host of other goodies. I remember toiling for a long, hot summer at a potato chip factory to earn enough to pay my tuition and expenses for a year of college. With a little help from my parents, and low-cost tuition, I saved enough money to pay the costs, with lots of grueling over-time and Saturday work. I had some “skin” in the game, I wasn’t going to blow it.
I will continue to blog about the cultural divide in our country in March. My forthcoming 
book—Divided: Five Colliding Worldviews and How to Navigate Them—describes the cultural divide primarily in the U.S. through the lens of five worldviews—indigenous, traditional, progressive, globalized, and transformative. Ideas from the blogs are explained in the book as well.
About the Author
Dr. Ames’ varied life experiences—scholarly research, teaching, reflections, and extensive travels—have contributed to her balanced and thoughtful perspectives. Earning a doctorate in world history education, she has taught secondary schools, universities, a community college, professional development trainings, and lifelong learners. In 2003, Dr. Ames founded the educational non-profit, Center for Global Awareness, developing globally-focused books and educational resources. She has written seven books, blogs, lesson plans, articles, newsletters, and teaching units for the non-profit and clients.
Dr. Ames is now developing a program called Turn—transformative understanding and 
reflection network—that encourages life-long learners to see things with new eyes, shift perspectives, and understand the balance in all things. She teaches classes and writes about cross-cultural awareness, indigenous wisdom, a transformative worldview, learning from the past, a mythic journey, and transforming travel.
among the educated—tends to be centered on individuals in which anything that does not hurt someone else is acceptable.
Although conservatives care about individuals and subscribe to fairness, they also value the authority, loyalty, and sense of sanctity that groups need. For many traditionalists, their greatest gratifications come from losing their individual identity and cooperating full tilt with the team, platoon, congregation, dance group, or choir. Altruism, devotion, and heroism cannot exist without groups.
When bridging the divide between two or more worldviews, a goal is to uncover universal commonalities that all people share. The process of discovering commonalities is also a way to build bridges.
not diversity, because people trust people who are like themselves.” For example, culturally similar Orthodox Jews run extremely profitable diamond markets efficiently and honestly because they trust each other.
Groups that sing songs or march together feed the notion of similarity and this increases trust. Haidt even says “There is nothing special about race. You can make people care less about race by drowning race differences in a sea of similarities, shared goals, and mutual interdependence.”
About the Author: Dr. Denise R. Ames
other side. We all get sucked into tribal moral communities. We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science, and common sense, but in fact everyone goes blind when talking about what they hold sacred.”
can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the other group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.” That is the way the moral mind works. But to the extent arguments do work, they have to reach the emotions first.
Dr. Ames’ varied life experiences—scholarly research, teaching, reflections, and extensive travels—have contributed to her balanced and thoughtful perspectives. Earning a doctorate in world history education, she has taught secondary schools, universities, a community college, professional development trainings, and lifelong learners. In 2003, Dr. Ames founded the educational non-profit, Center for Global Awareness, developing globally-focused books and educational resources. She has written seven books, blogs, lesson plans, articles, newsletters, and teaching units for the non-profit and clients.
reason. You do it by showing yourself to be a warm, attractive person. When you draw someone in emotionally, his elephant begins to lean your way, and the rider starts paying attention to what you say.” It is rare, but occasionally someone uses reason and arrives at a conclusion against her initial intuitions. However, “intuitions can be shaped by reasoning, especially when reasons are embedded in a friendly conversation or an emotionally compelling novel, movie, art, or news story.”
The conclusion Haidt reached about reason and intuitions can be applied to today’s political divide. In 1950, the American Political Science Association, attempting to avoid sharp polarization, presented clear policy choices from two different perspectives. Regrettably, as the political parties developed differing values and lifestyles, they also developed opposing facts.
The fact that emotions rule over reason has important ramifications for the cultural divide. When we believe our side is right and we find reliable facts to support our conclusion, it is usually an illusion we are chasing. Our emotions are ruling and the other side sees their side as equally right because they draw on a different set of facts to support their conclusions.
About the Author: Dr. Denise R. Ames
Haidt has found that our intuitions actually rule over reason. His research helped shift moral psychology away from rationalist models that dominated in the 1980s and 1990s to an understanding of morality from an intuitive level.
occasionally tells it where to go. The rider has the ability to reason and think about the future so he is useful to the elephant, but the elephant—like other animals—runs mainly on instinct.
Arguments are unproductive. Haidt continues, “Moral reasoning is like a dog’s tail: You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments.” If your arguments ever convince anyone, it is only after you have taken the trouble fully to understand what he or she feels and thinks. Haidt believes it is such an obvious point, yet few of us apply it in moral and political arguments because our minds so readily shift into combat mode.
About the Author: Dr. Denise R. Ames
creating new or personal stories, designing new rituals, discovering common myths, and finding inclusive metaphors. Similarly, sharing stories of heroes and heroines helps people glimpse what is important to others and uncover values they share. In doing so, all parties reveal information about their identity, what they find meaningful, their ideas about life, and relationships.
losing sight of the values they do not share. As we positively engage with each other, we can learn deeply about group identities (who they see themselves to be) and meanings (what matters to them and how they make meaning). As we go through this process of discovery, places of connection and divergence become clearer.
About the Author: Dr. Denise R. Ames
which we can bridge the cultural divide and this blog series is dedicated to that goal. It is fundamental to have a deep and personal understanding of others before progress can be made. However, it is difficult.
like dogs that are loyal and obedient. This makes sense, since liberals score high on the caring foundation and conservatives score high on loyalty. This is just one example of understanding differences. The world would indeed be dismal if everyone owned the same kind of dog.
Professor Haidt and his colleagues gleaned much of their research materials from their website, YourMorals.org. Website visitors answer questions about their moral foundations preferences from which Haidt has found that “conservatives understand the morals of liberals, but liberals do not understand those of conservatives. When conservatives are asked to answer questionnaires as if they were liberals, they generally get the motives right. But when liberals pretend to be conservatives, they attribute incorrect, evil motives. This is not surprising; liberals think conservatives are not just wrong; they are moral inferiors.”
About the Author: Dr. Denise R. Ames
