This article reveals how representative thinking fosters better relations among polarized citizens, suggesting implications for democracy.
Hannah Arendt insisted that people who share a society should talk to each other in order to inhabit as far as possible the views of fellow citizens. While for Arendt, the aim of such thinking is to consider other citizens’ views when evaluating issues, this article suggests another purpose that is more readily available in highly polarized contexts. In such settings, “representative thinking” may be best equipped to reveal the conceptions of the good that motivate views with which one disagrees. In antagonistic contexts such as the contemporary United States in which many people doubt that others’ opinions are premised on any sense of the good, this recognition can provide the groundwork for better relations between citizens, by cultivating acknowledgment of those with whom one deeply disagrees as legitimate cocreators of democratic society.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rachel Wahl (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: