I agree that preaching cohesion is bad. While unilaterally extending respect can be good in many contexts, I do not think that it is generically good advice to follow; rather, one needs to exercise discernment about when and how to do this. Not all groups, group identities, or moral perspectives are constituted the same way, and this can meaningfully affect what it means to "reciprocate" and whether:
1 You can get reciprocity that furthers your interests (e.g. you try to learn about someone's perspective to identify positive things you might have to offer them in trade, or ways you can do less of what they hate, and they do the same, or at least engage with your trade offers).
2 Only reciprocity you don't care about (e.g. if you're nice to them they'll say some empty words of approval but never ever expend any cognitive effort to change their actions in ways that help you or harm you less).
3 Reciprocity that's actively harmful to you (e.g. if you're nice to them they'll try to help you abuse your friends or validate you like a narcissist, helping you avoid noticing your flaws and persuading you that all your problems are someone else's fault).
Some people understand themselves to have legitimate grievances against or criticisms of the other side. Unilaterally extending respect to them is just good, because *they're not the other side in a conflict* - they're trying to solve problems, and everyone sincerely trying to solve problems has overwhelmingly convergent interests anywhere near current margins, except maybe specifically when men compete for the same woman as a mate, and even then I think convergence mostly dominates.
Some people are trying to demonstrate strength by showing what they can get away with. Unilaterally extending respect just validates their strategy, raising their status and lowering yours.
Some people are trying to demoralize forthright and prosocial people by invalidating their attempts to communicate. Unilaterally extending respect to such people demoralizes you.
Even if you know you're dealing with committed opposition such as the prior two cases, it can be worth performing the experiment, if there is a third party you care about who will justly evaluate the interaction, so that the person demonstrating good faith gains credit and the person demonstrating bad faith loses credit. But the sort of "cohesion" we care about consists in large part of such people constituting the bulk of society, or at least a dominant power in society, shaping our moral sentiments accordingly. If we're experiencing poor social cohesion, then that situation is not present and would need to be constructed.
Other strategies you might follow:
Knowledge is power. Presumably you're a member of group A and not group B because you believe group A is getting right answers on something important where group B is getting wrong answers. If you think group A is sufficiently better than group B, you might try to coordinate group A to conquer group B and rule benevolently. If the conquest is thorough then the cohesion will follow.
If you think group B has valuable information that group A lacks (despite being a member of group A), you might first try to integrate that information into group A to make it more powerful, giving it a stronger coordinating advantage against group B.
"What’s the alternative? Simple. Instead of preaching cohesion, reach out to Group B. Unilaterally show them respect. Unilaterally show them friendliness. They’ll be distrustful at first, but cohesion can’t be built in a day. If respect and friendliness fail, try, try, and try again."
This is the approach we've taken to immigration in the UK/most of Western Europe with disastrous (and much poorer than US) outcomes.
I agree that preaching cohesion is bad. While unilaterally extending respect can be good in many contexts, I do not think that it is generically good advice to follow; rather, one needs to exercise discernment about when and how to do this. Not all groups, group identities, or moral perspectives are constituted the same way, and this can meaningfully affect what it means to "reciprocate" and whether:
1 You can get reciprocity that furthers your interests (e.g. you try to learn about someone's perspective to identify positive things you might have to offer them in trade, or ways you can do less of what they hate, and they do the same, or at least engage with your trade offers).
2 Only reciprocity you don't care about (e.g. if you're nice to them they'll say some empty words of approval but never ever expend any cognitive effort to change their actions in ways that help you or harm you less).
3 Reciprocity that's actively harmful to you (e.g. if you're nice to them they'll try to help you abuse your friends or validate you like a narcissist, helping you avoid noticing your flaws and persuading you that all your problems are someone else's fault).
Some people understand themselves to have legitimate grievances against or criticisms of the other side. Unilaterally extending respect to them is just good, because *they're not the other side in a conflict* - they're trying to solve problems, and everyone sincerely trying to solve problems has overwhelmingly convergent interests anywhere near current margins, except maybe specifically when men compete for the same woman as a mate, and even then I think convergence mostly dominates.
Some people are trying to demonstrate strength by showing what they can get away with. Unilaterally extending respect just validates their strategy, raising their status and lowering yours.
Some people are trying to demoralize forthright and prosocial people by invalidating their attempts to communicate. Unilaterally extending respect to such people demoralizes you.
Even if you know you're dealing with committed opposition such as the prior two cases, it can be worth performing the experiment, if there is a third party you care about who will justly evaluate the interaction, so that the person demonstrating good faith gains credit and the person demonstrating bad faith loses credit. But the sort of "cohesion" we care about consists in large part of such people constituting the bulk of society, or at least a dominant power in society, shaping our moral sentiments accordingly. If we're experiencing poor social cohesion, then that situation is not present and would need to be constructed.
Other strategies you might follow:
Knowledge is power. Presumably you're a member of group A and not group B because you believe group A is getting right answers on something important where group B is getting wrong answers. If you think group A is sufficiently better than group B, you might try to coordinate group A to conquer group B and rule benevolently. If the conquest is thorough then the cohesion will follow.
If you think group B has valuable information that group A lacks (despite being a member of group A), you might first try to integrate that information into group A to make it more powerful, giving it a stronger coordinating advantage against group B.
"What’s the alternative? Simple. Instead of preaching cohesion, reach out to Group B. Unilaterally show them respect. Unilaterally show them friendliness. They’ll be distrustful at first, but cohesion can’t be built in a day. If respect and friendliness fail, try, try, and try again."
This is the approach we've taken to immigration in the UK/most of Western Europe with disastrous (and much poorer than US) outcomes.
Donald Trump said "fine people on both sides" after Charlottesville, and got his ass chewed out from both ends.
Adolf Hitler said "Gleichschaltung," and so it was after that. Or seemed to be, anyway.