By William J. Doherty, Ph.D.
For the past decade, I’ve had one foot in the world of marriage and family work and another in the world of political depolarization. I’ve come to see these as not very different kinds of work. We usually think of political polarization as a problem of elections, political parties, Congress, and government in general. But the most troubling form of polarization today is not simply disagreement over issues between political opponents. Political scientists call it “affective polarization”—generalized negative attitudes towards people on the other political side. It shows up in othering, disdain, and moral condemnation for large swaths of our fellow citizens.
This polarization has migrated beyond electoral politics into schools, higher education, public health, religion, law enforcement, and other institutions. A factor in its spread is that political identity has become increasingly central to how Americans see themselves and one another. And, inevitably, it has entered our closest relationships.
The family consequences are striking. Americans are far more uncomfortable than they once were with the prospect of a son or daughter marrying someone from the other political party. Political disagreements can turn family gatherings into minefields. Some family members stop talking about politics; others stop talking to one another. An example is a family in my state of Minnesota where the mother protested the 2026 ICE immigration surge and her son, a sheriff in a small town, called her a domestic terrorist and cut off communication with her.
Here is where the territory becomes very familiar to relationship educators. The content may be political, but the relationship processes are ones we know well. When an important relationship is threatened by difference, people often try to change the other person. When that fails, they escalate or withdraw. Each becomes increasingly certain that the other person is the problem. Avoiding difficult subjects can eventually seem like the only way to preserve the relationship. At the extreme, people may conclude that maintaining their integrity requires ending it.
But as family professionals we know there is another possibility: learning to remain connected while taking differences seriously. In family systems language, this involves differentiation—being clear about what I believe and who I am without requiring you to agree with me in order for us to remain connected—in family systems terms, neither enmeshment nor disengagement.
When I helped found Braver Angels, a national nonprofit working on polarization, I drew on decades of work with couples and families. We developed workshops bringing conservatives and liberals together, one-to-one conversations across the political divide, and skills workshops, including one titled “Skills for Disagreeing Better.” Independent research has found that participation in Braver Angels workshops can reduce affective polarization.
Consider some of the basic skills we teach. They will sound quite familiar to relationship educators.
Listen and connect before you disagree. Show genuine interest in how another person came to see things differently. Political beliefs, like other deeply held beliefs, have histories.
Agree before you disagree. Before explaining what you think is wrong with someone's position, try to identify something you can genuinely accept in it. This is not a debating trick. It communicates that you have actually heard the other person.
Speak from your own perspective. “The way I see it…” invites conversation more readily than “The fact is….” We teach people to use “I” statements rather than truth statements.
Affirm the relationship. Sometimes the most important sentence in a difficult political conversation is not about politics at all: “I love you, and I don't want our differences about politics to come between us.”
None of this requires people to become less committed to their political beliefs. And the goal is not to move to the political center. It is learning how to disagree without contempt and how to stay connected without surrendering conviction.
That is why I think marriage and relationship educators have something to offer our nation at a troubled time. Our polarized society needs the kinds of relational capacities our field has spent decades developing and teaching. We know that listening is hard but sets the stage for real conversation. We know that conflict can be managed without eliminating differences. And we know that healthy relationships require both a solid self and a durable connection to others.
I’ve come to think of these not only as relationship skills but as civic skills. At a time when Americans are struggling to live with deep differences, perhaps some of what our country needs is already sitting in our relationship education toolbox.
I invite you to consider becoming a Braver Angels workshop moderator if you want to take your skills to the public arena and work on a problem that keeps us from successfully addressing our other problems. Let’s put our oars in the water.
About the Author
William J. Doherty is an emeritus professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota and cofounder of Braver Angels, a national nonprofit working on the problem of political polarizations. He is a former NCFR president and a recipient of AAMFT’s Lifetime Achievement Award.
