How Unity May Tear Us Apart

As our nation hurtles toward pivotal midterm elections, we are certain to hear politicians calling for unity. National polls reveal that worries about polarization have taken the top spot on the lists of concerns for people in the United States, moving ahead of almost every other issue, from affordability to immigration to the state of our democracy. And in a time of deep division, it makes sense they would try to heal our national wounds with rhetorical balm.

Unity, as a concept, doesn’t mean the same thing to all people.

We are continually told a story about how starkly divided we are. The obvious solution in this story is that we need to come together, embrace unity, and our problems will be fixed in the process.

But is the word—unity—actually a trap awaiting nonprofit leaders and grassroots organizers?

As researchers who study US culture at the FrameWorks Institute, a social science research nonprofit, our goal is to help mission-driven organizations create a more just society. We do this by helping them understand how people think about social issues and then applying that knowledge to improve communications and strategies.

Our research shows that unity, as a concept, doesn’t mean the same thing to all people. In fact, some conceptions of unity are quite dangerous and could lead to extreme harm if they take root. This is especially relevant in the context of upcoming election campaigns and issue debates—and the mindsets that meaningfully drive conversations about achieving unity through progress.

Two Critical Cultural Mindsets

Our research revealed two competing cultural mindsets that underpin talk about unity: unity through progress and unity through restoration. These conflicting prisms lead to dramatically different ways of thinking about what divides us and what to do about it.

Unity through progress is a forward-looking mindset in which people see the need for us to come together to address injustices in order to advance as a country. In this mindset, unity can only happen if we grapple with and address what people see as longstanding challenges in our society like racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Unity through restoration, on the other hand, calls for a return to the way things “used to be,” when people imagine things were simpler and we were a less-divided country. Think of the idyllic, fictional scenes of the 1950s and 60s in Leave It to Beaver or The Andy Griffith Show.

Importantly, in this mindset, returning to a time of perceived unity entails going back to past racial, gender, and other hierarchies. When people use this mindset to make sense of today’s world, they see discussions about injustice as contributing to division and the return to a “simpler” time as the solution.

Our research revealed two competing cultural mindsets…about unity: unity through progress and unity through restoration. 

Our research on deep mindsets—the underlying assumptions and patterns of reasoning that shape our thinking—allows us to dive under the surface of polling numbers and reveal nuance. Understanding mindsets helps us see what people really mean when they say unity is the obvious answer to our country’s problems.

So, where do we go from here?

How “Restoration” Can Spur Autocracy and What to Do About It

The way we frame this discussion and the narratives we advance have significant implications for which version of unity people have in mind, the policies and solutions they support, and who is included and excluded in a truly united United States. The patterns in our communications also determine, over time, which of these mindsets wins out.

Our research shows that people across demographic groups hold both unity mindsets, though unity through restoration is held more strongly by Republicans and people with less education.

We found that across party lines, the more strongly someone holds the unity through restoration mindset, the more strongly they support policies like a federal mandate to recognize only two genders or actions taken to eliminate DEI from all government institutions.

And we found that of all the mindsets we track, unity through restoration is the single best predictor of whether someone supports authoritarianism. If unity is seen to hinge on restoring societal hierarchies, then unilaterally and forcefully imposing them on society becomes a necessary first step.

But there is hope.

Successful anti-authoritarian efforts can put forward a vision of unity that has a clear eye to the future, not just an attempt to restore the past. New national mobilization efforts, including Stacey Abrams’s 10 Steps Campaign, work in this space. The campaign calls for bold, concrete steps by saying, “It’s not enough to reclaim what we had. We must demand more and build a better government. Be clear about what we deserve—from our allies and from those who would destroy democracy. Don’t meekly ask for what we think we can get. Declare what kind of country we intend to build.”

Smart Framing, Better Narratives

Communicators of all types—on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and within every issue-focused organization in the country—need to be wary of simply stating the importance of unity and leaving things at that.

Seemingly innocuous calls to “come together across differences” or to understand “the importance of unity in this moment” might actually strengthen a unity through restoration mindset, even if an organization’s mission and values are aligned with the idea of unity through progress.

In our analysis of these complex issues, we’ve developed several best practices that nonprofit leaders can use to activate a unity through progress mindset in their communications:

• Discussions on this topic should always be well-planned and intentional, with speakers and writers choosing their words carefully. If the goal is to cue the unity through progress mindset, people should link divisions to injustice and explain how addressing injustices can bring us together.
• It’s important to avoid framing that suggests we need to “go back” to some other time or that idealizes a nostalgic sense of the past. Restoring a bygone era will force a return to inequality, inequity, and harm.
• Decision-makers should avoid relying solely on polls or any other research methods that skim the surface of public opinion. They should always dive deeper to map out the underlying mindsets that are driving the discourse. This sort of intelligence ensures the signals they deliver to their audiences align with the messages they actually intend to convey.

Our Advice to Nonprofits Is “Early and Often”

November 3—Election Day—may seem distant, especially as the nonprofit sector confronts new challenges every day, but local and state campaigns are already well underway. Now is the time for nonprofit leaders and organizations to adjust messaging and speak out, ensuring their language supports the causes they’re committed to moving.

We know conversations around unity can be tricky. Looking at the mindsets that meaningfully drive those conversations helps us move beyond the words people say to better understand the real meaning they convey. This lies at the very core of using communications to strategically advance goals.

There’s one thing the research makes clear: Communicating effectively about overcoming division is more complicated than vaguely gesturing to the importance of unity. And if communicators aren’t careful, they may inadvertently activate a mindset that works against the values they seek to advance.