Weems: Dividing or building bridges: Hearing, speech and finding commonality

Carl Weems, Guest Columnist

November 16, 2025

A bridge over the Skunk River provides outdoor enthusiasts an entrance to hiking trails at River Valley Park.

“Solidarity is not discovered by reflection but created. It is created by increasing our sensitivity to the particular details of the pain and humiliation of other, unfamiliar sorts of people. Such increased sensitivity makes it more difficult to marginalize people different from ourselves…
This process of coming to see other human beings as ‘one of us’ rather than as ‘them’ is a matter of detailed description of what unfamiliar people are like and of redescription of what we ourselves are like.”

The quote above is by the philosopher Richard Rorty in his book “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity,” and it epitomizes the goal of this article. I’ve spent much of my career studying emotional and behavioral development, as well as the things that connect humans.

One area is how existential anxiety — our deep fears about death, meaninglessness and moral failure — shape human life. These fears are often invisible, but they can influence how we respond to conflict, uncertainty and change. I’ve been asked to reflect on the debates unfolding in our society as illustrated in the pages of the Iowa State Daily.

Whether the topic is free speech, identity or social values, what I hear is both the seemingly diametrically opposed content of the arguments, but also a commonality in the core human concerns behind them.

When people feel threatened, regardless of the viewpoint that threatens — the reaction is both ideological and deeply emotional. When individuals feel that their identity, values or future are at risk, they may experience a kind of existential threat that can divide the bridges that connect us all.

Debates over social policy or identity, for example, can quickly escalate. Opinions that challenge one’s worldview may be experienced not just as disagreement, but as a threat to one’s very sense of self or meaning.

The irony is that the same existential concerns that can divide are also the potential bridges to connect or reconnect us. For example, the same existential concern “This is destroying our way of life forever — a way of life that we have cherished for generations” can be held by both those who believe in climate change and those who do not.

When we see strong reactions to speech, it’s worth asking: what deep fears might be driving that reaction? Is it fear of being misunderstood, marginalized or silenced? Is it fear that society is changing in ways that feel unsafe or unfamiliar? Understanding these emotional drivers doesn’t excuse harmful behavior, but it does offer a pathway to empathy and commonality.

The divides we see in society are real, and they are often painful. But they are also an opportunity. As someone who has studied trauma, anxiety and ways to foster resilience, I believe we have the tools to bridge these divides with effort. It starts with a willingness to see the individuals who share the same existential concerns as you do — just expressed in different ways. However, doing this is no easy task.

One of the most promising concepts I’ve encountered in this regard is psychological flexibility — the ability to tolerate discomfort, consider multiple perspectives simultaneously and act in alignment with one’s values.

This concept is central to the therapeutic approach of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which helps individuals navigate difficult emotions and engage more constructively with others. For those who would like to learn more about these techniques and concepts, a brief overview is here.

I have been lucky enough to work with colleagues at ISU who are developing these techniques and see firsthand how these can effectively address some of the most pressing problems in society, such as preventing violence and recidivism.

In my recent writing and thinking, I’ve argued that deep resilience can emerge when individuals recognize that adaptive action may be fostered by recognizing humanity’s shared hopes and fears — the ones that underlie existential anxiety.

This applies to fostering dialogue — acknowledging the fears and values shared on all sides. Thus, in addition to asking “Who is right/who won the debate?” or “What position is best for me and my own?” we might also ask:

“What core concern is driving this position or the articulation of the position?”
“What core human value is being defended?”
“How can we honor those values without harming others or how can we honor that value while still helping the most people?”

Adding these questions to our repertoire of analysis won’t necessarily resolve conflicts or create rapprochement, but they may open the door to empathy, understanding and more fully constructive engagement.

Speech is often framed as a legal or political issue, but it’s also an existential and emotional one. The ability to engage with diverse viewpoints, tolerate disagreement and express oneself authentically is easy to suggest, but we must also cultivate the emotional and cognitive skills that make these possible.

That first means recognizing when reactions are driven by fear rather than reason and learning to respond with care and curiosity whenever possible.

Existential concerns can be both polarizing and galvanizing. Balancing these concerns when expressed in opposing viewpoints is no easy task in an increasingly polarized world. Thus, in addition to science, we need the arts and humanities to help us in discovering our commonalities.

In that spirit, I close with words from Rush’s “Closer to the Heart”: “And the men who hold high places must be the ones to start, to mold a new reality closer to the heart. The blacksmith and the artist reflect it in their art. They forge their creativity closer to the heart… Philosophers and ploughmen, each must know their part to sow a new mentality closer to the heart.”