Since 2020, PACE, the philanthropic network where I serve as CEO, has been helping grant makers combat toxic polarization. To inform that work, we talk to a lot of people on the ground, including practitioners, organizers, researchers, and others intimately familiar with the antagonism and extremes that roil our country and threaten progress.

Privately, many tell us philanthropy is part of the problem.

Now grant makers are not the primary drivers of toxic polarization. Nor do they intentionally operate as conflict entrepreneurs. But despite our best intentions, we are human and susceptible to habits and behaviors that stoke and fuel toxic polarization.

What is toxic polarization? It is different from polarization. To be clear: Diverse societies need divergence, debate, and even vehement disagreement — we can’t (and shouldn’t) agree on everything. Polarization is a necessary feature of liberal democracies and a critical ingredient for free markets and civil societies to make hard decisions and address society’s problems.

But toxic polarization, sometimes called affective polarization, is something much more than a difference of opinion. It’s when opposing sides come to see their counterparts as “the enemy” and “evil.” It’s when disagreement slides into dehumanization, creating the conditions for identity- and ideology-based hate and violence.

As this type of polarization grows in America, grant makers are increasingly asking what they can do to bridge divides and build resilience to political violence — this is a good thing. But based on our conversations with practitioners, there may be things philanthropists should stop doing if they want to address polarization.

5 Polarization Accelerators

  • Righteous attitudes
  • Zero-sum thinking
  • Prioritization of ends over means
  • Group think, rigidity, and purity tests
  • Relationships as tactics

Funding With a Social Cohesion Mind-Set

To help philanthropists address polarization thoughtfully and purposefully, PACE has developed resources for what we call social cohesion philanthropy. This approach aims to maximize relationships in service of problem-solving and shared purpose, and it features these principles:

  • Avoid either/or, zero-sum, and “one right way” thinking.
  • Consider unintended consequences and who is being left out.
  • Evaluate impact, not just intent.
  • Interrogate unconscious assumptions about other people and groups.

Several of these principles are aligned with what many racial equity practitioners call us to consider. Social cohesion and social justice do not have to be antithetical to each other, but toxic polarization is definitely antithetical to them both.

Read the full article about social cohesion philanthropy by Kristen Cambell at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.