Coming Together, Not Apart - References

  1. See Kleinfeld, R. (2023). “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says.” Working Paper. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. September 5. Toxic polarization differs from ideological polarization—where individuals hold different views on issues. It includes both affective and perceptual polarization, which means groups actively dislike and even dehumanize each other, and view the other side as extreme in comparison to their own, respectively. According to the Horizon Project’s Good vs. Toxic Polarization, “Toxic polarization is thus marked by high levels of loyalty to a person’s ingroup and contempt or even hate for outgroups.” Another commonly used term here is “pernicious polarization,” defined as the division of society into mutually distrustful political camps in which political identity becomes a social identity. For more on pernicious polarization, see Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer, “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities,” American Behavioral Scientist 62, no. 1 (January 1, 2018): 16–42. Of course, toxic polarization did not begin overnight in 2016—it was on the rise in the years preceding that. Ambassador James Joseph, the President and CEO of the Council, gave a speech about the need to renew support for pluralism in the US as early as 2012. See his remarks here: https://web.cof.org/2011Annual/josephhighlights.html
  2. Several sources:
  3. Kleinfeld writes, "It is not that affective polarization is unimportant: antidemocratic behavior is unlikely to change unless underlying emotions among the voting public change….[But] For emotional change to yield lasting impacts, people must have more behavioral options—groups of differently minded friends to shift to (which is particularly hard in sparsely populated rural areas), a broader set of political choices, and other options in their social and political spaces.” See Kleinfeld, R. (2023), “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says.” Working Paper. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. September 5.
  4. Research shows that Americans mistakenly believe the other side dislikes and disagrees with them about twice as much as they actually do. See a short report on the topic at https://beyondconflictint.org/americas-divided-mind, or visit the full academic article: Moore-Berg, S.L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions Predict Intergroup Hostility Between American Political Partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  5. To read more about “the exhausted majority,” see Hawkins, S., Yudkin, D., Juan-Torres, M., and Dixon, T. (2018). “The Hidden Tribes of America: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” More in Common.
  6. One example of a major research initiative is The Global Initiative on Polarization, a five-year effort between the Ford Foundation and the Institute or Integrated Transitions (IFIT) to examine the harmful impact of polarization around the world. https://ifit-transitions.org/the-global-initiative-on-polarization/. Real-world interventions since that time have proliferated. One well-known competition was the Strengthening Democracy Challenge at Stanford University, which tested 25 counter-polarization strategies: https://www.strengtheningdemocracychallenge.org. The winning intervention involved a video that was designed to correct misperceptions between Democrats and Republicans. https://beyondconflictint.org/adm-video-intervention
  7. Lindsay, D. (2023). “Philanthropy’s Job in Polarized America: Make Partners of Enemies, a New Poll Says,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 13.
  8. Two initiatives originating at that time include the Omidyar Network’s Building Cultures of Belonging program, and the Social Cohesion Philanthropy campaign at Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE).
  9. There was debate about how effective these investments were.
  10. Walton Family Foundation. (2023). “Americans Views on Change and Collaboration.” November 23. Americans tend to blame social media, traditional media and elected officials for fostering negativity and division.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.
  13. See Lindsay, D. (2023). “Philanthropy’s Job in Polarized America: Make Partners of Enemies, a New Poll Says,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 13.
  14. The survey was sent directly to members of the Council, PACE, and New Pluralists, and made available to philanthropic organizations via social media platforms. Organizations that have invested in this work as well as those that have not were encouraged to respond. The survey ran from September - December 2023, with five additional responses received in July 2024. 144 responses were collected in total, out of which 11 were omitted in the analysis stage because they were duplicates or they referenced an international foundation. Respondents offering incomplete information were kept within the analysis, leading to variation in sample size across questions (reported within the endnotes).
  15. In our sample (n = 133), community foundations comprised the largest percentage of respondents (39.1%), followed by private foundations (18.8%), family foundations (16.5%), public grantmaking charities (6.7%), donor advised or pooled funds (6.0%) and independent foundations (5.3%). The following types of grantmaking organizations made up less than 5% of respondents: “Other” (3.9%), Corporate foundation (1.6%), corporate giving program (0.8%), and operating/research foundation (0.8%).
  16. Question: “Thinking about the projects your foundation has funded or supported in the last 10 years, how many would you estimate could be described in the ways listed above (e.g., connect or collaborate across difference)?” N = 115. The exact breakdown was as follows: 34.8% funded 26 or more projects; 12.2% funded 11-25 projects; 14.8% funded 6-10 projects; 22.6% supported one to five projects; and, 15.7% of the sample selected, “We have not funded or supported work like this to date.” The overall percentage of respondents who have not funded or supported work like this to date decreases to 15.0% when we include known funders who responded to the survey but did not answer this question.
  17. Question: “If you had to estimate, what proportion of your foundation’s grantmaking went toward this type of work in 2022?” N = 85. The exact breakdown was: 14.1% (86-100% of budget); 9.4% (51-85% of budget); 14.1% (36-50% of budget); 38.8% (10-35% o budget); 18.8% (10% or less of budget); 4.7% (unsure).
  18. Question: “Is that proportion [of your foundation’s grantmaking that went toward this type of work in 2022] more, less, or roughly the same as 2021?” (N=85). 24.7% said “more,” “65.9% said “roughly the same,” 2.4% said “less,” and 7.1% were unsure.
  19. Question: “Looking at 2024, does your foundation plan to maintain, increase, or decrease [the proportion of your foundation’s grantmaking that went toward this type of work in 2023]?” (N=85). 35.3% said “increase,” “43.5% said “maintain,” 1.2% said “decrease,” and 20.0% said “unsure.”
  20. Question for current non-funders: “Is your foundation planning to fund projects like these in the future?” (N=16). 16.7% said “yes,” 61.1% said “I am unsure,” 11.1% said “no,” and 11.5% did not answer the question.
  21. Two out of three of the highest investments were made by state government grant programs focused on housing and nonprofit infrastructure (at $37.5 million and $33.1 million, respectively). The third highest amount, at $32 million, is a multiyear grant from a family foundation to Facing History and Ourselves.
  22. Respondents were asked to write in their project’s geographical area of focus. (“If applicable, please list town/city and state; region if there are multiple states; or write “national” if there are multiple regions.”) These open-ended data were coded manually.
  23. Question: “Briefly describe what this project was trying to accomplish.” N = 123. Organizations described their project goals in an open-ended response, and we used GenAI to code these responses using the typology described here. Each response could receive multiple codes, since many projects served more than one goal (e.g., one project could be coded for “supporting anti-hate efforts” as well as “countering authoritarianism”); thus, the total number of coded project goals is greater than the 123 total projects. Thirty percent of the codes were then reviewed to ensure accuracy.
  24. According to a national pilot study by More in Common, 72% of Americans say we have a responsibility to connect with people who are different from us, and many express interest in engaging in activities across difference in the near future. See More in Common (2023). Social Connection Across Difference in the U.S. https://www.moreincommon.com/media/1u3ndxq4/two-pager-overview.pdf
  25. Lilliana Mason introduced this idea of “social sorting” in Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. See also: Finkel et al. (2020). “Political Sectarianism in America,” Science, 370(60).
  26. PACE (2024). Civic Language Perceptions Project 2024: How Civic Language Unites, Divides and Motivates American Voters: https://www.pacefunders.org/language/
  27. A Funders Guide to Building Social Cohesion, produced by the Democracy Funders Network in collaboration with the Civic Health Project, New Pluralists, and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, identifies five strategies for building social cohesion. All of them require relational and cultural change. They are bridge building, skill building, inclusion and belonging, transforming collective settings and narrative change.
  28. Epstein D. (1984). The Political Theory of The Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-21300-2. In his mind, this would “make it harder for any one viewpoint to predominate unless it had the support of a broad and enduring majority.” Importantly, pluralism does not see “the common good” as a fixed condition, rather one that will constantly shift in accordance with social conditions. On this matter, see Blattberg, C. (1996). "An Exchange with Professor Sir Isaiah Berlin," The Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust.
  29. The earliest ideas around social cohesion can be traced back to the writings of Ibn-Haldun in the 14th century, who put forth the idea of asabiyyah, which has been translated as “group feeling.” See Dragolov, G, Ignácz ZS, Lorenz J, Delhey J, Boehnke K, Unzicker K. (2016). “Theoretical Framework of the Social Cohesion Radar,” In Social Cohesion in the Western World, Dragolov G, Ignácz ZS, Lorenz J, Delhey J, Boehnke K, Unzicker K, Eds (Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland) pp. 6. See also:
    • Hassan, F.H. (2006). Ibn Khaldun and Jane Addams: The Real Father of Sociology and the Mother of Social Works (Universiti Teknologi Mara: Kuala Lumpur, Alatas), and (2006). “A Khaldunian Exemplar for a Historical Sociology for the South,” Curr. Sociol, v.54 (397–411).
    • For modern day work on values and social cohesion, see Nowack, D. & Schoderer, S. (2020). The Role of Values for Social Cohesion: Theoretical Explication and Empirical Exploration, Institute for Development and Sustainability: Bonn, Germany.
    • Dragolov G, Ignácz ZS, Lorenz J, Delhey J, Boehnke K, and Unzicker K. (2016). “Social Cohesion, Values of Individuals, and Their Well-being,” in Social Cohesion in the Western World, Dragolov G, Ignácz ZS, Lorenz J, Delhe, J, Boehnke K, Unzicker K., eds. (Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland), pp. 79–92.
  30. Kervalishvili, I. (2022). "Chapter 12: Rule of Law as a Basis for the Establishment of a Constitutional State," Global Dimensions of Democracy and Human Rights: Problems and Perspectives, Georgian Technical University.
  31. Flathman, Richard E. (2005). Pluralism and Liberal Democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 080188215X
  32. See Dragolov G., Ignácz Z.S., Lorenz J., Delhey J., Boehnke K., and Unzicker K. (2016). “Social Cohesion Radar: Measuring Common Ground---An International Comparison of Social Cohesion Methods.” Bertelsman Stiftung.
  33. See Schiefer D. & van der Noll J. (2017). The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review. Soc. Indic. Res, v. 132 (579–603). Social cohesion is also now an intervention strategy for the World Bank when it comes to building resilient communities – see its “Social Cohesion and Resilience” webpage.
  34. For example, see Mulvaney-Day NE, Alegría M, and Sribney W. (2007). “Social cohesion, social support, and health among Latinos in the United States,” Soc. Sci. Med, v. 64 (477–495) and, Kamphuis CBM, van Lenthe FJ, Giskes K, Huisman M, Brug J, Mackenbach JP (2008). Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, v. 40 (71–81).
  35. Lenoir G, Magaña Lopez M, Gallegos A, Diaz T. (2023). “Othering, Belonging, Bridging and Breaking,” Bridging to Belonging Curriculum: Analysis and Case Studies, Othering and Belonging Institute: slide 21.
  36. See BMAC's Definition of Bridging towards the bottom of the BMAC webpage: https://www.listenfirstproject.org/bridging-movement-alignment-council
  37. Baumeister RF & Leary MR (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
  38. Argo, N. & Sheikh, H. (2023). “The Belonging Barometer: The State of Belonging in the US.” Over Zero and The Center for Inclusion and Belonging at the American Immigration Council.
  39. As written in the Belonging Barometer, “While social relationships can be a source of belonging, one can feel belonging without them (for instance, in settings where they do not, or not yet, have strong relationships). One can also lack belonging despite having friends in a setting, especially if they feel that one of their social identities is marginalized there.” Ibid, p.4.
  40. Belonging has been defined as the “quality of fit” between oneself and a setting. See Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 272–293). The Guilford Press.
  41. Gallegos, A. & Surasky, C. (2023). “Belonging Design Principles: A Resource Guide for Building Belonging,” Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. August 7.
  42. Lenoir, G., Lopez, M., Gallegos, A., Diaz, T. (2023). “Othering, Belonging, Bridging and Breaking,” Bridging to Belonging Curriculum. Othering and Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. June 12.
  43. Gallegos, A. & Surasky, C. (2023). “Belonging Design Principles: A Resource Guide for Building Belonging,” Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. August 7.
  44. Gallegos, A. & Surasky, C. (2023). “Belonging Design Principles: A Resource Guide for Building Belonging,” Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. August 7.
  45. Wooll, M. (2024). “Finding Common Ground With Anyone: A Quick and Easy Guide,” BetterUp.
  46. Two out of three of the highest investments were made by state government grant programs focused on housing and nonprofit infrastructure (at $37.5 million and $33.1 million, respectively). The third highest amount, at $32 million, is a multiyear grant to Facing History and Ourselves.
  47. Respondents were asked to write in their project’s geographical area of focus. (“If applicable, please list town/city and state; region if there are multiple states; or write “national” if there are multiple regions.”) These open-ended data were coded manually.
  48. Question: “Thinking about the projects your foundation has funded or supported in the last 10 years, how many would you estimate could be described in the ways listed above (e.g., connect or collaborate across difference)?” N = 115. The exact breakdown was as follows: 34.8% funded 26 or more projects; 12.2% funded 11-25 projects; 14.8% funded 6-10 projects; 22.6% supported one to five projects; and, 15.7% of the sample selected, “We have not funded or supported work like this to date.” The overall percentage of respondents who have not funded or supported work like this to date decreases to 15.0% when we include known funders who responded to the survey but did not answer this question.
  49. Question for current non-funders: “Is your foundation planning to fund projects like these in the future?” (N=16).  16.7% said “yes,” 61.1% said “I am unsure,” 11.1% said “no,” and 11.5% did not answer the question.
  50. Question: “If you had to estimate, what proportion of your foundation’s grantmaking went toward this type of work in 2022?” N = 85. The exact breakdown was: 14.1% (86-100% of budget); 9.4% (51-85% of budget); 14.1% (36-50% of budget); 38.8% (10-35% o budget); 18.8% (10% or less of budget); 4.7% (unsure).
  51. Question: “Is that proportion [of your foundation’s grantmaking that went toward this type of work in 2022] more, less, or roughly the same as 2021?” (N=85). 24.7% said “more,” “65.9% said “roughly the same,” 2.4% said “less,” and 7.1% were unsure.
  52. Question: “Looking at 2024, does your foundation plan to maintain, increase, or decrease [the proportion of your foundation’s grantmaking that went toward this type of work in 2023]?” (N=85). 35.3% said “increase,” “43.5% said “maintain,” 1.2% said “decrease,” and 20.0% said “unsure.”
  53. Question for current non-funders: “Is your foundation planning to fund projects like these in the future?” (N=16).  16.7% said “yes,” 61.1% said “I am unsure,” 11.1% said “no,” and 11.5% did not answer the question.
  54. See the Community Bridge Builders program website: https://www.lancfound.org/grant/community-bridge-builders/
  55. See Laugharn, P. (2018). “The Importance of Interfaith Dialogue in Today’s World.” Hilton Foundation. https://www.hiltonfoundation.org/news/our-news/message-from-peter-laugharn-the-importance-of-interfaith-dialogue-in-todays-world [accessed September 7, 2024].
  56. Arthur Vining Davis Foundation. “CT Global: Improving Religious Literacy and Interfaith Understanding Among Christians.” https://www.avdf.org/grants/ct-global-improving-religious-literacy-and-interfaith-understanding-among-christians/ [accessed September 7, 2024].
  57. Walton Family Foundation. “Restoring the Gulf Coast and Louisiana Communities.” https://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/stories/environment/restoring-the-gulf-coast-and-louisiana-communities [accessed September 7, 2024].
  58. See the website of the Constructive Dialogue Institute: https://constructivedialogue.org/
  59. For more information, contact Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky: https://www.appalachianky.org/
  60. The Bridging Differences Playbook can be found at: https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/what_we_do/major_initiatives/bridging_differences
  61. The Bridging and Breaking Curriculum can be found at: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/bridging-belonging
  62. More information can be found in Search For Common Ground’s annual impact report: https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2022-Impact-report_EU_Global-audience_nov8.pdf
  63. See Greenwell, M. (2023). “Solutions Oriented: How Foundation Money is Transforming Local News,” Columbia Journalism Review.
  64. See the Common Ground website: https://www.commongroundcle.org.
  65. See the StoryCorps website: https://storycorps.org/discover/onesmallstep/one-small-step-connect/
  66. Scientific research as well as programmatic tips related to intergroup contact are included in this recent guide: Tropp, L. R. & Dehrone, T. A. (2022). Cultivating Contact: A Guide to Building Bridges and Meaningful Connections Between Groups. American Immigration Council
  67. Council on Foundations, Center for Public Interest Communications. (2024). “Philanthropy’s New Voice: Building Trust With Deeper Stories and Clear Language.” https://cof.org/program-initiative/better-stories-better-language
  68. See https://www.danvallone.com/
  69. In the words of Kristen Cambell, CEO Of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, “it might be summarized as a debate over what theories of change are more likely to achieve fairness, full equality, and justice for all within a diverse society—those that are about mutual cooperation and consensus building, or those that are about power-building and advocacy that necessitates ‘taking sides.’” See Campbell, K. (2023). “Which Comes First: The Equity or the Pluralism?” PACE. June 27.
  70. To be clear, it was not bridging itself that triggered the debate, but bridging whereby civility was prioritized over “real talk,” or change. In the words of Hayling, “...bridging with people different from ourselves is an essential skill in healthy communities and a functioning democracy. Bridging is not a goal in itself, but it can be a powerful process toward building a multiracial, inclusive democracy.” The problem was the perceived whitewashing of dissent or the creation of “shared goals” that maintain the status quo. Hayling, C. (2022). “Hey, Philanthropy: Division Isn’t Our Biggest Problem,’ Inside Philanthropy,  December 6. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2022/9/6/hey-philanthropy-division-isnt-our-biggest-problem
  71. See Kleinfeld, R. and Idris, S. (2023). "No One Is Right in the Debate for and Against Philanthropic Pluralism." The Chronicle of Philanthropy: The Commons. June 15, 2023. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/no-one-is-right-in-the-debate-for-and-against-philanthropic-pluralism (accessed Sept. 9, 2024). Lopez, G. (2019). "The First Step Act, explained." Vox. February 5. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/18/18140973/state-of-the-union-trump-first-step-act-criminal-justice-reform (accessed September 2, 2024).
  72. Idris, S. & Kleinfeld, R. (2023). “No one is right in the debate for and against philanthropic pluralism,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 15.
  73. Lopez, G. (2019). "The First Step Act, explained." Vox. February 5. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/18/18140973/state-of-the-union-trump-first-step-act-criminal-justice-reform (accessed September 2, 2024).
  74. Lewis, D. (n.d.). HEARTS & MINDS: The untold story of how philanthropy and the Civil Marriage Collaborative helped America embrace marriage equality. Proteusfund.org. https://www.proteusfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Hearts-and-Minds-CMC-Publication.pdf
  75. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (n.d.). Civil Marriage Collaborative. Rockpa.org. https://www.rockpa.org/case-study-civil-marriage-collaborative/
  76. Pride Foundation (n.d.). Why Marriage Matters | Journey. Pridefoundation.org. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_EpGQ-4Iz4
  77. Lewis, D. (n.d.). HEARTS & MINDS: The untold story of how philanthropy and the Civil Marriage Collaborative helped America embrace marriage equality. Proteusfund.org. https://www.proteusfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Hearts-and-Minds-CMC-Publication.pdf
  78. As Idris and Kleinfeld write, “Activists who facilitate collaborative action do not treat justice and peace as a tradeoff but integrate the principles of both in their activism.” See Idris, S. & Kleinfeld, R. (2023). “No one is right in the debate for and against philanthropic pluralism,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 15. One tool for assessing and designing philanthropic programs with an eye towards this is The Social Cohesion Self-Evaluation User Guide, created by Philanthropy for an Active Civic Engagement (PACE): https://www.pacefunders.org/scp-evaluation/
  79. See the Peace Impact Framework for an introduction to the multitude of factors influencing peace and thriving communities: https://cnxus.org/peace-impact-framework/
  80. Johnson, T. (2023). “Putting the “Us” back in the U.S.: Celebrating 250 Years of a Nation,” March 7.
  81. The survey was sent directly to members of the Council, PACE, and New Pluralists, and made available to philanthropic organizations via social media platforms. Organizations that have invested in this work as well as those that have not were encouraged to respond. The survey ran from September - December 2023, with five additional responses received in July 2024. 144 responses were collected in total, out of which 11 were omitted in the analysis stage because they were duplicates or they referenced an international foundation. Respondents offering incomplete information were kept within the analysis, leading to a small amount of variation in sample size across questions (reported within the text).
  82. In our sample (n = 133), community foundations comprised the largest percentage of respondents (39.1%), followed by private foundations (18.8%), family foundations (16.5%), public grantmaking charities (6.7%), donor advised or pooled funds (6.0%) and independent foundations (5.3%). The following types of grantmaking organizations made up less than 5% of respondents: “Other” (3.9%), Corporate foundation (1.6%), corporate giving program (0.8%), and operating/research foundation (0.8%).
  83. Masters, S. B. & Hernandez, R. (2022). Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy. Better Futures Project & Democracy Funders Network. https://docsend.com/view/4kwp34tw3722qqit
  84. Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 272–293). The Guilford Press.
  85. Claridge, T. (2018). What is Bonding Social Capital? Institute for Social Capital. https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/what-is-bonding-social-capital/
  86. Lenoir G, Lopez M, Gallegos A, Díaz T. Othering, Belonging, Breaking & Bridging: Bridging to Belonging Curriculum. Othering and Belonging Institute. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SzvvQluHkdkxyzth5haRxIadsmfRZu2c/edit#slide=id.g18fac28417b_0_329
  87. Building Common Ground: A Tool for Leaders," Change Matrix. (2014). https://changematrix.org/building-common-ground-a-tool-for-leaders/#
  88. Saunders, H. (2001). A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan.
  89. Tropp, L. R. & Dehrone, T. A. (2022). Cultivating Contact: A Guide to Building Bridges and Meaningful Connections Between Groups. American Immigration Council.
  90. Wise, S. (2022). Design for Belonging: How to Build Inclusion and Collaboration in Your Communities. Ten Speed Press
  91. Masters, S. B. & Hernandez, R. (2022). Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy. Better Futures Project & Democracy Funders Network. https://docsend.com/view/4kwp34tw3722qqit
  92. Kleinfeld, R. (2023). Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says
  93. Ibid.
  94. Manca, A.R. (2014). Social Cohesion. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2739
  95. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.
  96. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). Psychology Press.
  97. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust

Questions?

Connect with Council Staff
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on all