The Powerful Unifying Effect of Service
By: Matt Visnovsky
Tags: National Service, America, Politics, Society, Race

Mending social divisions through service

America is still the land of opportunity. This is made clear by the fact that so many around the world want to be here. Yet the same opportunities are not necessarily available to all Americans. Prejudice continues to contribute to disparities in areas like employment, wages, social mobility, and policing.

The manner in which we approach this problem is critical. If we are tempted by proposed quick-fixes for these disparities — more diversity quotas, racial wealth redistribution, defunding police, etc.— we will drive the country further apart. If we instead look for ways to remedy the underlying cause of the disparities — prejudice — we can bring the country together like never before.

Unfortunately, the human brain is wired for prejudice. Negative preconceptions thrive in environments where interaction between different groups is limited. The solution is to create positive interactions between people of different identity groups to override the negative programming that may exist.

The key here is positive interactions. Certain conditions must be present to produce the desired outcomes of acceptance and tolerance. Psychologist Gordon Allport, in his seminal 1954 work The Nature of Prejudice, identified four conditions necessary for inter-group activity to result in a reduction in prejudice. These are equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support. In psychology, this is now referred to as the contact hypothesis. In my experience, these conditions provide the bedrock for effective teambuilding in nearly any environment.

The four conditions of equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support illustrate why service is capable of mending our social divisions.

Equal Status

Equal status means that all members of a team engage as equals in its endeavors. Similarities between members should be emphasized and differences minimized. It is important to negate any perception of a hierarchy among teammates.

For example, upon arrival to boot camp all military recruits get the same haircut, put on identical uniforms, and begin at the lowest rank. Civilian service participants typically wear team shirts and interact as equals, regardless of who they are or where they came from. This equality provides the foundation for cohesion within these groups.

Cooperation towards a Common Goal

A shared goal is critical for positive outcomes. The goal must also demand cooperation between members. This dynamic is prevalent in sports, where teammates form close bonds while striving to win a championship.

These conditions are also ever present within the military, especially during times of war. Few goals are more unifying than protecting and defending the interests of your country, and nothing has higher stakes for cooperation.

Civilian service has an endless list of possible shared goals. These might include rebuilding a community after a disaster, working on critical infrastructure projects, or developing local solutions to fight poverty, to name a few. And of course, cooperation plays a huge role in all these efforts.

Institutional Support

Institutional support refers to support for positive inter-group interactions by those in charge. This support might be expressed through an institution’s policies, laws, or customs. Organizational leaders should enforce measures that ensure equal treatment and condemn comparisons between identity groups.

Leadership within the military and civilian service organizations have continually demonstrated a commitment to ensuring equal treatment and equal opportunities for all their members.

The four conditions of equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support illustrate why service is capable of mending our social divisions. Most diversity efforts in America today fall short because they fail at fulfilling one or more of these necessary conditions.

Why current diversity efforts fall short

If we are willing to take a hard look at the state of prejudice in America today, a few concerns emerge.

First, using diversity as selection criteria is an example of treating the symptoms — lack of diversity and inequality — rather than the underlying cause — prejudice. While there are benefits to having a diverse workforce, hiring or promoting for the sake of diversity and at the expense of qualifications can deepen prejudice. This is because it gives the appearance that there are differences in capabilities between identity groups, failing the condition of equal status. In almost all cases, qualified diverse candidates are out there. Yet all too often employers do not engage in the necessary outreach efforts to find them.

Second, there is a lack of cooperative environments for inter-group interactions. While Allport observed that inter-group cooperation leads to a reduction in prejudice, he also noted that competition exacerbates it. Competition — not cooperation — defines the majority of interactions between identity groups today. Online sparring on platforms like Twitter probably comprise the worst of it. But competitive work environments where personal goals override organizational goals can also contribute to prejudice. A two-year service commitment dodges this competition pitfall, as it is a temporary experience where performance among peers is not tied to metrics of societal success and recognition.

Competition — not cooperation — defines the majority of interactions between identity groups today.

Finally, the band-aid approach known as diversity and inclusion training has proven to be woefully ineffective. One study found that asking white Americans to think about the concept of white privilege led to more racial resentment in later surveys. Telling people they should not be racist will never have the impact of showing them their racist beliefs are unfounded through positive interactions with others.