For the past few weeks, and frankly, for the past few years, I have been sitting with variations of the question, are we better off divided? Our heightened partisanship, polarization, and political violence in America makes this question a hard one to ignore, and I cannot help but see it as evidence that some Americans believe that we are, in fact, better off divided. Versions of this question frequently come up in conversations I share with colleagues, friends, and family members. It seems to be on many people’s minds, and it’s a sobering one. Is America actually better off divided?

The answer? It’s complicated.

I found space to consider this question and live in its complexity when CEP (Center for Effective Philanthropy) and PACE (Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement) launched a series, appropriately titled Complicating the Narrative on Bridging and Division. Over the course of nine weeks, the teams engaged leaders with diverse vantages points and life experiences to ask their views on bridging — what it can do, what it can’t, and what we need to do to move forward together.

I gained incredible insight from Kristen Cambell of PACE, who kicked-off the series by setting the stage on what division in America looks like today; drawing the through-line between unity, tolerance, forbearance, and inclusion as necessary conditions in a civil society; providing context on why there has been skepticism about “bridging work” in philanthropy; and challenging us to consider “there is risk to bridging and risk to not bridging — who decides what risks are appropriate to take? And whose work is it to do?”

Read the full article about bridging work in philanthropy by Amy Baker McIsaac at Medium.