This month, NBC News reported that 41% of American local officials surveyed said polarization was having “substantial negative effects” on their communities—roughly ten percentage points higher than in three previous surveys. Local officials described angry calls over fuel prices, bitter school board disputes over books, and, in one case, even threats against a council member seeking funds for emergency and homeless services.
We all know that political suspicion can consume the work of governing. Yet it also undermines the basic fabric of belonging--our confidence that we can be heard, that we can contribute, and ultimately count on one another.
In the face of extreme polarization, there’s a prescription we often hear: listen. Seek to understand other perspectives and look for common ground. While all of this is essential, there's a deeper level to consider.
When people struggle to trust one another’s intentions, even an invitation to dialogue can feel futile or suspect.
Psychology research points to a less-recognized but crucial way forward. Evidence shows that cooperating on even extremely simple shared tasks can improve how people treat one another, including when broader attitudes remain largely unchanged.
Crucially, we can begin improving a relationship before we’ve resolved how we feel about the person on the other side.
Action before agreement
In Mexico, an experiment involving more than 2,000 people paired political opponents for online tasks, including giving feedback on pop culture questions. Those assigned to collaborate as equals showed more tolerant behaviour toward people with opposing views three weeks later, without a clear change in broader political feelings. The measures included willingness to join a future discussion with political opponents.
In Iraq, researchers randomly assigned displaced Christians to soccer teams with either Christian or Muslim teammates. Christians who played alongside Muslims became more willing to join mixed teams and were more likely to train with Muslims six months later. They didn't suddenly change their entire view of the other group; what changed first was what they were willing to do together.
Of course, cooperation doesn’t replace justice, accountability, or confronting real abuses of power. Yet it offers a way to improve relationships where people can participate freely and meaningfully. It’s a place to start.
Trust can begin with a small commitment
Trust can feel like an enormous demand when we disagree deeply with somebody. But the key point is it can begin with a much more specific kind of judgment: “I can rely on you for this.”
Someone brings the supplies they promised or stays to finish the job. Their political identity hasn’t disappeared, but it is no longer the only thing we know about them.
A review of 137 cases of collaborative governance identified a recurring pattern: small wins can deepen trust and commitment, helping people continue working together. This finding draws on experience across many cases, rather than a controlled experiment.
The key is repeated interaction over time. One good encounter may be dismissed as an exception. When someone follows through again and again, we have more evidence to consider—and a shared history to draw on.
This is an important way to build belonging. People begin to expect one another’s presence, ask for help, and notice when someone is missing. Each person has a place in a relationship that continues.
Different interests can sustain common work
In the face of growing wildfire risks, there’s an opportunity for people to come together across differences. In a fire-prone area of Oregon, the Harney County Wildfire Collaborative brings together largely conservative ranchers along with environmentalists, tribal members, scientists, and government agencies. A phase of the wider project completed in 2025 removed overgrown juniper across more than 1,100 acres—a tangible result of sustained cooperation that reduced fire risk.
People can recognize the same need—like preventing a natural disaster, supporting children, helping neighbours after a storm—while disagreeing on broader political or scientific questions. Those different experiences can become useful to the work. One person knows the neighbourhood, another can organize transportation logistics, another can make machinery repairs.
Belonging grows when people have a useful role, real “voice and choice” in what happens, and the experience of having their contribution taken seriously.
A practical way to begin
Start with a priority that genuinely constitutes common ground. Choose a need everyone already cares about. “Would you help us get the school’s book swap ready?” “Can we develop a shared plan for flood readiness in the neighbourhood?” The task should be worthwhile and have intrinsic value even if nobody changes their politics as a result of its completion.
Participate as equals. Share decisions and responsibility, giving everyone room to influence the work. Make the first commitment achievable. That means agreeing on a manageable task, finishing it, and acknowledging what each person contributed.
Then do it again. Each occasion gives people a chance to build a record of reliability—and perhaps to have conversations that once felt impossible in an age of deep divisions.
Schools, libraries, faith communities, and sports clubs can facilitate these opportunities. The key message isn’t just that we can get work done, but also something more fundamental to belonging—you have something to contribute here.
This is reason for hope amid so much polarization. We can disagree profoundly and still learn, through experience, that we can rely on one another. Common work gives us something to accomplish. Shared wins give us reasons to trust. Over time, those experiences can help us recover something rare and precious in divided times like these: the confidence that, despite our differences, we can still show up for one another.