The seismic force of polarization is threatening the bedrock of society–that’s the fear of many people across the world.

Those living in the USA, Argentina, Colombia, South Africa, Spain and Sweden believe their country is severely polarized; others in the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Brazil fear their country is in danger of polarisation.¹ We pick sides. Where we stand has become central to our identity, especially on social media where we vent about the alleged evils of the other side. In reducing others to symbols or ideologies, there’s a sense that we’ve lost the confidence to engage across difference. This is particularly evident in the workplace, where leaders are grappling with the challenges posed by intergenerational differences; in several countries age has become one of the most prominent political dividing lines.² About one in four Americans avoid listening to people whose views they don’t like, and disturbingly, among Generation Z, the proportion goes up to one in three.³

When you look closer, however, the data on polarization points to a more nuanced picture. Between the extreme and often elite voices who hog the limelight with their clashing convictions lies an overlooked “Exhausted Majority,”⁴ a phrase coined to describe people fed up with polarization who want to move past their differences—even in the polarized USA. Other statistics point to a more tolerant attitude towards “others.” For example, in the UK only one in 20 people now say they wouldn’t want an immigrant as a neighbor, a proportion that has sharply declined over the last 20 years, among all age groups.⁵ In addition, rather than being split into two opposing camps, opinion in many countries is better described as a shifting kaleidoscope of views. The colored fragments of glass are reassembled each time the cylinder is shaken, whenever a new issue comes to the fore.⁶

That said, you can’t underestimate the fears people have about the impact of societal polarization, from worsening prejudice and discrimination to slowing economic growth.⁷ Polarization also prevents us from coming together to tackle a host of existential threats that transcend borders, such as wars, pandemics and disinformation. Climate change is an area where genuine debate and real understanding are urgently needed, but in the USA and (to a lesser extent) in Britain and other countries, attitudes have become politicized and thus often polarized.

In some ways, we are psychologically hardwired for this sort of conflict. When attitudes harden, neuroscientist Jay Van Bavel and psychologist Dominic J Packer write,⁸ people begin to see their own interests as being fundamentally opposed to the aims of the other group. “We start to think that we’re not only good but that we’re inherently good. And if that’s true, then they [your opponents] must be intrinsically bad and should be opposed at all costs.”

So, the risk is not just that you may hold very different opinions to others—ideological polarization—but that you then tend to feel negatively about them all as a group—affective polarization. If a society is affectively polarized, people see the group who thinks differently to them as unreasonable and closed minded, driven by self-interest and ideology, resistant to hearing or recognizing the truth⁹ (meaning the truth that they hold dear).

We think we are rational, but in these polarized contexts, we’re often driven by judgements and emotions, highly sensitive to anything that looks like a threat to us or our in-group. Many of us assume that there is a fundamental difference between “us” and “them.” Coach Nancy Kline unpacks this assumption into what she calls core beliefs:

• Who I am is what I believe.
• I am entirely right and you are entirely wrong.
• My values are superior to yours.
• If I become interested in your views, I will have to adopt your values, and so I will stop being me; I will become an inferior person.¹⁰

These core beliefs are powerful, capable of keeping us swaddled in our separate cocoons, afraid that we will betray our deeper self. And because we feel threatened, when we do meet the”other,” we focus more on counter arguments than on listening, and thus often leave the conversation more entrenched in our beliefs, our attitudes more extreme.¹¹

Disputes within our own family and community can escalate into conflict, fracturing friendships and family ties. People can be left feeling isolated without a sense of belonging, so polarization can feed into loneliness. A global study of more than 140 countries found that one in four adults felt lonely, with higher rates among young people.¹² When you are lonely, you’re deprived of the comfort of being properly listened to or feeling heard. Loneliness isn’t just an emotional pain felt by individuals, it also damages our health. When people feel lonely, they are far more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and an early death.¹³

It is not only individuals who are harmed; loneliness and alienation also carry political risks, tearing our connective tissue. When groups of people feel dismissed, they experience a loss of dignity and status, a sense of humiliation and shame. Individuals cut off from others yearn for a new way to make sense of the world, wrote Hannah Arendt in her seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, and so are much more likely to be persuaded by the temptations of authoritarianism. “Terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other … Isolation … is [terror’s] most fertile ground.”¹⁴

DEEP LISTENING CAN INOCULATE US

Polarization is a serious problem. Loneliness is a threat to society and individuals. But through empowering us to have fulfilling encounters, both with those who think differently and those who think alike, Deep Listening can help inoculate us.

I would like to be able to define my Deep Listening approach in a single, simple sentence. But this rich and multi-layered process resists a pat definition. Here, I’m going to try to convey its core.

Entirely present and in a safe place, having listened to yourself first, you invite someone to share their thoughts. Guided by curiosity, empathy and respect, you listen to truly understand, letting go of judgements—and any instincts to agree, disagree, obey, solve, or change them. After silence, you reflect back the essence of their words, feelings and underlying thoughts, to check that you’ve grasped their meaning and to inspire more thinking. They go deeper and you reflect, again. On this journey together, you both understand more fully. They feel heard, met, and acknowledged. Irrespective of whether you agree, you both feel more connected.

Of course, Deep Listening alone cannot solve complex conflicts. Nonetheless, through seeing beyond binary identities, through creating confidence among people with contrasting beliefs to reach out across the divide, through developing more understanding, we can build trust between individuals with conflicting agendas, within communities and between them.

Truly listening to individuals who challenge us with alternative viewpoints whatever the issue, whether or not we are right, is important. As writer and Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka put it to me, it’s a hallmark of a fully formed social being. I value Soyinka’s insight: listening across the divide is a way of being that we can aspire towards as individuals, and as a society. Encouragingly, when we asked people across the US why they might want to learn to listen better, the primary reason they cited was to understand people with different views, a significantly more popular motivation than learning to listen without interrupting, or to be a better friend or even to perform better at work.¹⁵

I was able to witness first-hand this recognition of competing perspectives in a society under fierce geopolitical pressure.

Feelings were running high in the Baltic state of Latvia, just nine months following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Three decades after freeing themselves from Soviet occupation, Latvians feared that Russian troops might reinvade at any moment. And the perceived threat came not only from outside. A third of Latvians speak Russian at home,¹⁶ and these Russian speakers were widely suspected of having split loyalties. The British Council wanted to find ways to help tackle this divide and invited me to Latvia to train people in Deep Listening, both in the capital Riga and the mainly Russian-speaking town of Daugavpils only 75 miles from the Russian border. It was an opportunity to work with people from both communities together so they could practice with a participant from the “other side.” After the course, one Russian-speaking participant, Ilona Ustinova, who works in the Daugavpils city education department, reflected on her experience:

“When you Deeply Listen and enable a person to feel safe, they start to trust you and express their deeper feelings. So even in Daugavpils, a city with Latvian, Russian and Polish people, I’ve ended up having much more profound conversations, for example with people who feel very differently about the war in Ukraine. I used to try and persuade others and now I try harder to understand. Each person has their own story and I’ve learned to respect that.”

Through practicing Deep Listening in an environment defined by tension and suspicion, Ustinova has become aware of her own pre-judgements and prejudices, so she can see beyond them. Knowing a listener is not there to judge or criticize them enables a speaker to feel safe and accepted when they feared they might be threatened or rejected. This understanding becomes the key to unlocking people’s capacity to reflect on their own prejudices. As psychologist Carl Rogers wrote: “In this atmosphere of safety, protection, and acceptance, the firm boundaries of self-organization relax. There is no longer the firm, tight gestalt [whole] which is characteristic of every organization under threat, but a looser, more uncertain configuration … his self-structure is now sufficiently relaxed so that he can [discover] … experiences of which he has never been aware, which are deeply, contradictory to the perception he has had of himself.”¹⁷

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

Rogers’ point reflects the transformational development that takes place in people who are truly heard. They shift from an autocracy in their head—there’s only room for one idea, their own, to an understanding that two perspectives can co-exist—a democracy.^18,19

Someone who feels less defensive and more able to see both sides of an argument will also be more likely to dial down the strength of their beliefs. This is not a new insight. In 13th-century Japan, Buddhist monk and poet Dōgen Zenji, wrote: “When you say something to someone, he may not accept it, but do not try to make him understand it intellectually. Do not argue with him; just listen to his objections until he himself finds something wrong with them.”²⁰

More than seven centuries later, there is now compelling evidence that high-quality listening can enable a speaker to escape from the narrow confines of a fixed perspective. Research has revealed that when speakers are really listened to as they discuss controversial subjects—be it taxing junk food or euthanasia—they become less defensive and soften their attitudes, what’s known as dialing down their attitude extremity. They no longer feel torn about holding contradictory ideas.21

A RIGHT TO BE LISTENED TO

Speaking and listening are both essential acts of citizenship. Recognizing people’s right to be listened to is a necessary complement to recognizing their right to be heard. Acknowledging this right also means affirming the worth of everyday voices that so often get muted. When we refuse to listen, we refuse to know. Deep Listening can uncover fresh knowledge and new ideas that can inspire us to tackle entrenched problems and transcend boundaries. But Deep Listening cannot be enforced. We also need to protect solitude: we don’t automatically have the right to spout our ideas to any passer-by, if the passer-by doesn’t want to listen. As listening needs to be authentic, people need to be ready and open to hear someone else’s story. By cultivating a culture that respects the autonomy of both speakers and listeners, we create space for genuine understanding.

In the world, we build too many walls and not enough bridges. Deep Listening is a bridge across which we can walk to create a culture of understanding, nurture coexistence, and build societies more resilient to the pressures of polarization.

 

Adapted from Deep Listening: Transform Your Relationships with Family, Friends, and Foes by Emily Kasriel. published by William Morrow and Company. Copyright © 2025 by Emily Kasriel. All rights reserved.

 

About the Author

Emily Kasriel’s distinguished career at the BBC for over two decades included roles as an award-winning journalist, editor and media executive. She developed the Deep Listening approach as a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King’s College Policy Institute in London, drawing on her experience as an accredited executive coach and workplace mediator. Previously, she’s been a Visiting Fellow at Said Business School at Oxford University, and a Senior Advisor to the Skoll Foundation. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at Columbia University. An MA graduate of the University of Oxford and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of International Relations (as a Rotary International Fellow), she lives in London.