Our “Inner Circles” are Overrated

Why we should seek to connect with people across difference.

I watched a TedTalk the other day featuring author Zachary Wood. An advocate for civil discourse, especially on college campuses, Wood had this to say about the importance of listening to people we disagree with:  “Through engaging [with people who hold other opinions], I believe that we may reach a better understanding, a deeper understanding, of our own beliefs and preserve the ability to solve problems, which we can't do if we don't talk to each other and make an effort to be good listeners.”

There is always an opportunity to learn from people with whom we disagree. In our daily lives, we have a tendency to avoid branching out from our comfort zone and interacting with people who might not think like us. Sociologists argue that this is limiting our access to bridges that connect us to other groups, and therefore limiting our ability to expand our understanding.

Mark Granovetter, a sociologist and professor at Stanford University, proposed a theory in his 1973 paper, The Strength of Weak Ties. Most people would think that our strong ties – close friends, family, or colleagues – are most important for support and information. Granovetter argues the opposite: weak ties – acquaintances, distant colleagues – are crucial for expanding one’s breadth of understanding, opportunities, and perspectives. Our strong ties result in redundancies, because these circles are typically insular and interconnected. We also, as a rule, build stronger relationships and are attracted to people with whom we have similarities. When we maintain a large range of weak ties, they act as bridges to other social circles. These weak ties expose us to a variety of opinions and backgrounds, particularly those we might not actively seek to engage. 

The other benefit of weak ties is that there is less pressure to hold to in-group expectations, leading to an environment where difference is not just accepted, but expected. In today’s hyperdigitalized world, algorithms serve as echochambers; they read our activity and output the information that we want to see. This creates an environment in which – unless we seek them out – challenging opinions are few and far between. 

Why does this person disagree with me? This is something we rarely ask ourselves, but is one of the most important questions in an age where disagreement and polarization dominates our political culture. This polarization has even led to acts of political violence. This is a direct result of viewing disagreement as a personal attack and an insurmountable obstacle to relationships. Each and every person holds their beliefs for a reason. Most Americans aren’t simply drawing values out of a hat and voting for the candidate that best supports those priorities. If you grew up in a household where paying the electric bill each month was a struggle, you are probably going to support an expansion of low-income housing and social safety nets. If you have been the victim of a violent crime, and own a gun, you are probably going to be wary of policies that might restrict your ability to defend yourself. When we come to understand that there are deeper issues that underlie political views, we can start seeing difference as the very thing that makes our country a beautiful place, not a threat to our own identity. 

By seeking intellectual and social discomfort, we force ourselves to understand our own opinions, as well as those of others. Difference is not something to avoid, but to embrace, because the real danger isn’t in branching out, it’s in surrounding ourselves with voices that simply echo our own. There is more at stake than comfort. These dialogues are opportunities to stretch our minds, expand our understanding, and connect with people. Discourse isn’t a threat to truth, it’s the road that takes us there. 

“Diversity [is] the art of thinking independently, together” – Malcolm S. Forbes

Silas McLellan is a 25/26 Trinity Fellow and Think Again's Communication Director.