Every day, I hear viewpoints that clash and contradict one another.
Immersed in our community, I witness firsthand social division and the harm it causes, especially to the vulnerable people and communities most affected.
For me, the discomfort of absorbing conflicting perspectives and harm is not just an intellectual exercise in cognitive dissonance, but an emotionally demanding challenge that requires constant awareness, reflection and resilience.
Holding those tensions feels, at times, like carrying the weight of the world on the bridge we build to bring people together.
Yet it is on that same bridge where I glimpse what is possible when we resist social division and instead choose empathy and understanding.
When we choose to work together instead of against each other.
I’m often asked how and why we keep doing it when human behaviour can be so disheartening, and the challenges we face so overwhelming.
The truth is, we ask ourselves those same questions regularly.
I often feel caught between perspectives, understanding opposing viewpoints as shaped by different experiences and circumstances.
Sometimes I feel like I belong everywhere, sometimes nowhere.
As community organisations, we are often positioned as both allies and adversaries.
This can shift depending on context and expectations. I feel this tension acutely.
This is part and parcel of holding space for diverse needs and expectations, balancing empathy with boundaries, and recognising that support can look different depending on where people sit.
It’s not just about striving for positive change, but the very real fear of what might happen if we stop trying.
It is that awareness that drives many of us working within the community sector.
The challenges themselves highlight how invested the many people in our community who show up to drive positive social change truly are.
Division has roots in our psychology.
In-group/out-group bias leads us to favour those like us and distrust those we see as other.
This bias can be cultivated intentionally for control to detract from underlying issues and avoid accountability, a concept known as divide and conquer.
It can also emerge unintentionally through validation-seeking, fear and insecurity, or lack of self-awareness.
Either way the effect is the same, mistrust grows, empathy shrinks, and common ground feels impossible.
When we work against each other we are less likely to unite against injustice or create positive change.
The question of whether we are inherently good or bad is an age-old one.
In community work, I see evidence for both. Altruism and empathy alongside self-interest and harm.
Nature versus nurture theory suggests that human nature is dual, shaped as much by environment and context as by biology.
Under threat and competition, we may default to fear and self-interest.
In moments of safety and connection, our capacity for kindness shines through.
Our focus shouldn’t be to debate politics, perspectives or philosophy, but to cultivate the conditions that bring out our better selves.
Leadership matters. History and research show us that while leadership approaches that lean on fear and division can produce compliance, they also erode trust and long-term stability.
Leadership approaches that unite people around shared vision foster collaboration and empowerment.
While leadership doesn’t eliminate conflict, communities led by unifiers are more resilient and cohesive.
Leadership might shape our environment, but empathy determines how we inhabit it.
Empathy is often treated as a soft quality, but social-behavioural science shows it is one of the most powerful forces for social harmony.
While empathy is more prevalent in women on average, differences are moderate, not absolute, and heavily influenced by culture and context.
Empathy is a skill that we can all develop and strengthen, regardless of biology.
Cognitive empathy is understanding another’s perspective, emotional empathy is feeling another’s emotions, and compassionate empathy is wanting to act to help.
When we practise empathy, especially compassionate empathy, we weaken the hold of in-group/out-group bias.
Empathy doesn’t erase our differences, but it does humanise those we might otherwise dismiss.
Without it, division hardens into hostility.
Both offline and online community spaces are not just places for connection, but mirrors reflecting our fractures.
When these spaces become places of conflict, we must reevaluate the kind of community we are building.
Social trust, the belief that others are generally good and trustworthy, is one of the strongest predictors of community health and wellbeing.
When public spaces are hostile, that trust erodes.
When they are welcoming and inclusive, trust grows, and communities thrive.
For all the noise of politics, real change begins locally.
Communities are where division is felt most sharply, but also where healing begins.
Social psychological contact theory states that meaningful interaction across our differences works best at community level to reduce prejudices.
Individuals practising healthy communication and respect for diversity, family, friends and neighbours mutually looking out for each other, and organisations working collaboratively are all small ways that we can create a better future.
We cannot always control what happens in our wider environment, but with awareness we can decide how we respond in our own backyard.
Collectively, we can create something stronger than the forces driving us apart.
Division thrives when we forget the humanity of those across from us.
Empathy will not erase our differences, but it can be the bridge that brings us together.
