unnamed (68) (1)

Unity Under Siege

When you reflect on some of the basic underpinnings of unity, it’s alarming to see how effectively these foundations are being undermined all around us today.
Image: Shackleton’s team launching the 20-foot boat from the shore of Elephant Island, 24 April 1916.

In 1916, Ernest Shackleton and his men accomplished a seemingly impossible feat requiring complete unity. Their once proud ship had been smashed by the ice flows around Antarctica, and the tight-knit crew was stranded for months on the ice and later on Elephant Island with little hope of rescue.

Shackleton resolved to take five men from his crew to risk the 720-nautical-mile journey back to the South Georgia whaling stations, where he knew he could find help. So they set off through the Drake Passage the roughest patch of water on Earth. And they did so in a 20-foot open boat sometimes with oars and others times by sail. The adventurers fought through mammoth waves, screaming winds, crushing ice, and powerful currents with a leaky hull, a lost anchor, and foul drinking water.

When the bedraggled sailors finally entered the small South Georgian cove and hauled the boat onto the rocks, they were heavily bearded, their hair was almost to their shoulders, their faces were black with grime, and their clothes were ragged. They were parched, weak, and pained with frozen blisters, but remarkably, they had successfully returned to South Georgia 521 days after their departure from the island in a miraculous feat of united courage.

Accomplishments like Shackleton’s simply don’t happen without the principles that produce unity, which is a shared perception of “we-ness” that we are all in this together. This elusive concept is connected with community, sacrifice, and a responsibility we have as humans towards each other, along with a deep-seated need to strive as a group toward a common goal. At a very basic level, we want to harmonize with those around us and implicitly recognize its benefits. 

Yet unity seems to be increasingly difficult to come by in America today.  In an age where we’re literally forgetting why unity matters, it can be valuable to reflect again on what unity actually means and what brings it into reality. Below, I take up three foundational underpinnings of unity that Shackleton and his men possessed: a shared vision, strong leadership, and mutual acceptance. As simple as they might seem, these patterns work, whether talking about unity in teams at work or unity in our community or nation. So, why not embrace principles so plain and precious? To close the essay, I’ll dig into why unity seems to be unraveling at accelerating rates and what we can do to preserve it in America.

Crucial Building Blocks for Precious Unity

A shared vision. The word “community” comes from the Latin communis, meaning “shared by all” and “in common.” Through social support and the combination of skills from different members of a community, united teams can create products and services of complexity and scale that a talented individual alone could never achieve. Research unsurprisingly shows that cohesive and united teams outperform non-cohesive ones. And choral singers, rowing crews, and work teams are happier, able to withstand more pain, and push themselves harder for others than those out of sync.

Of course,  if members of a group have no shared purpose, there is little reason to unify. They are like strangers thrown together in an elevator where everyone will soon exit on a different floor because they see little to no reason to stay with the group. 

If you want to destroy unity, highlight trivial differences between group members and then use those differences as justification to banish everyone associated with the other side.

Certainly, the ability of individuals to unify is a power that can be edifying or destructive since unified groups can come together to build schools or concentration camps. That’s why the vision and intent of a group determine so much of its ultimate virtue and impact.  Joining the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, for example, might grant you power, prestige, and unity of purpose, but the broader world would suffer for your decision.

Drug cartels aside, unity doesn’t require that group members agree on everything only that they embrace some kind of an overriding vision or underlying commonality. Even with this shared vision, however, unified team members can still have meaningful differences in how to move towards higher aspirations. Other fundamental differences may also remain, including nationality, religion, ideological beliefs, education, and so on. 

But none of this needs to be feared as long as team-members practice respectful contestation which can prompt everyone to grow.  And since no one person has all the gifts and capacities necessary for success in complex matters, unified teams are benefited by people with diverse skills, perspectives, and interests.

Committed leadership. Effective teams need a unifying vision, but they also require a visionary someone to clearly articulate why the group matters, convince others to join, actively participate, and not walk away. This includes pointing to past leaders and visions from the past.  A Christian leader, for example, might urge others to adopt Jesus Christ’s vision of goodness in the world and embrace that aspiration in their homes and communities.

As the environment and dynamics of a group evolve, successful leaders will adjust a group’s purpose to meet current needs. Without ongoing leadership, group unity left on its own will decay.

Mutual acceptance. Even with strong leadership and a shared vision, without genuine acceptance at a personal level, unity will be hard to come by.  Instead, we experience the squabbling and contention increasingly common around us.  

Mutual affection and acceptance are conducive to unity because teammates see each other as part of a broader whole and not just on a conceptual (“vision”) level at an emotional one.  In groups with this kind of cohesion, when one member of the team takes a step toward the shared objective, the teammates rejoice and view it as a shared victory. 

How to Disrupt Unity

If unity is fostered through devoted leadership, shared purpose, and mutual acceptance, undermining any of these factors will naturally disrupt group cohesion. If someone were purposefully trying to create discord in American society, they would undoubtedly have success doing the following:

Attack the foundational vision. If you can convince individual team members that their shared purpose is unreachable, pointless, or evil, then at that moment, they are arguably severed from the group. Rather than seeing opportunities for worthwhile effort in exploring ways to improve a flawed vision, often individuals conclude that foundational vision is worthless and move on to some new purpose.  

I’ve seen the change in coworkers’ eyes and demeanor when they decide the objective is no longer worth fighting for. It’s a kind of blank aimlessness and the end of unity for them.

The larger consequences for the group are obvious. Regardless of the sport, a team that expects to lose every game will unravel. And if the rising generation never comprehends the vision or never has a chance to accept it, unity will perish as the older generation moves on. 

Undermine the leaders. Our news cycles are filled with stories of current and historical political leaders who are under attack including both national and state leaders and those leading individual faith communities and organizations. It’s true that not all leaders are seeking the public good with some seeking genuine unity and others for political dominance under the guise of political unity. Yet, in an atmosphere where all leaders are constantly under fire, we shouldn’t be surprised to see fewer and fewer people trusting all leaders of any kind.  

Persuade group members to reject each other. Groups can accept or reject members for reasons that have nothing to do with the shared vision. For example, a church congregation could ostracize someone because of their dress, manners, or reputation, and that rejection could occur even if the congregants and the stranger share the same core beliefs. We may unknowingly or even maliciously exclude others from our group, so conscious effort is always needed to ensure we are sending a message of acceptance from others interested or looking on from the outside. 

In sum, if you want to destroy unity, highlight trivial differences between group members and then use those differences as justification to banish everyone associated with the other side. That’s a recipe for unity to collapse and be replaced with nasty, brutish war.

The Urgency of Promoting Unity Today

Like most people in the world, I love my country my people. I hear the talk of civil war, see the images of discord online or in the news, and feel the loss of those who no longer consider themselves, or me, American. When I look past the inconsequential (and consequential) disagreements constantly encircling us, I still find the core vision that we can strive toward together. The vast majority of US adults (87%) are proud to be American. We still believe the nation should protect our lives, our liberty, and our property from those who would take them away. And the large majority of Americans still support the rule of law and the precepts found in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and about half of the ten commandments.

To preserve and defend our foundational unity as a country, we must look for additional ways to give our children a chance to learn and internalize a vision of what it means to be an American while supporting leaders who can articulate this for a new generation. And we all need to continue practicing patience with those who share much of this core vision but differ in other insignificant ways.

In doing so, we will be bound in unity and affection and receive the power to accomplish more than a fragmented nation could ever hope to. Much like Ernest Shackleton’s team of adventurers, we can then overcome difficulties and come together to accomplish more than any independent bunch of individuals could ever achieve alone.

About the author

Michael Westover

Michael Westover is a business leader at Providence who studies the impact of healthcare interventions on patient populations. He has degrees from Brigham Young University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He lives with his wife and five children in Southern Washington.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Meetinghouse Used for Ukranian Refugees

Among the interesting details in LDS Daily’s stellar reporting today is about a Latter-day Saint meetinghouse that is being used to house and support refugees leaving the country. The baptismal font has been adapted to be used as a shower, and local church members come to the building every day to help clean. https://news-uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/places-of-refuge-from-the-storm Latter-day Saint Meetinghouse in Ukraine Used as Refugee Station This is an important article highlighting the ways we can in our own small spheres make a big difference in helping the lives of others.  A full list of efforts the Church is making in helping with the current refugee situation can be found at the Church’s newsroom.  

Latter-day Saint Families: Eternal Perspectives

Latter-day Saints draw strength from doctrines of the eternal nature of family and from religious practices that unify our community. Many of these strengthening teachings and practices are shared by other communities, and this is something to celebrate.

When Did We Stop Trusting the Media? A Review of “September 5”

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January.