In honor of the holidays, I’d like to take a look at the three topics of conversation that everyone knows to avoid at social gatherings.

Sex. Religion. Politics.

To put it mildly, this triumvirate  can be divisive, which is why they’re famously avoided in favor of awkward small talk and coversations that no one wants to have. Sex, religion and politics are naturally controversial – unless all of the conversationalists agree. If the majority of people in the room hold them same beliefs, then these issues become a way to bond and confirm one’s acceptance in the ideological fold. The ideology itself is secondary to re-affirming a sense of belonging; or, to put it another way, it is the conduit through which this re-affirmation is performed. This is a pretty universal phenomena – doesn’t matter if the ideology is Christian nationalism, atheism, queerness or Catholic Pro-Choice Buddhist Libertarianism…. The downside to this bonding experience is the formation media silos that get consistently and thoughtlessly. People with differing beliefs are “othered” more and more.

There’s a contrarian impulse to  bring up trans-athletes when we know that Aunt Janice is a TERF? Why talk about what a goon Nick Fuentes is in from of Uncle Ed, who thinks that “Hitler took a good idea too far”? Is it just an impulse to troll?  Or is there something deeper functioning?

I suspect that it comes down to a couple of things. The first is biology – it literally feels good to throw down ideological grounds. Righteousness = dopamine. The second is evolutionary and a little more complicated. Riling up your vegan cousin or your MAGA neighbor is a little bit like defending your thought village from hostile invaders.

This is not to say that ideologies are bad. I’m full of ideologies, as are most human beings. To believe in things is incredibly human, so I will not fault humans for having beliefs. The trouble isn’t in ideologies, but in the bubbles around them, ie: our inability to see past our own to consider the views of others.

When sex, religion or politics are brought up in the context of extended families, roasted meats and lots of alcohol, the impulse might be ideological, either as an assertion of our own ideology, and the deep-rooted need to have that identity ratified by non-believers. Or, to put it more simply, to change Aunt Janice’s goddamned mind. This is clearly not going to happen because she feels the same way about you. But we have the impulse to try.

This impulse is important, because it’s an impulse to engage. While ideological clashes can, and often do, lead to uncomfortable interactions, they also open the door to possible engagement if the participants are willing to approach each other flexibly.

Sex, politics and religion are divisive issues. Discussing them is not always useful or healthy, but their divisiveness also contains an impulse to engage. That is where their potential lies, but their value lies in going one step farther, past simple engagement, to a place of thinking and of discourse as we challenge and are challenged. This feels impossible right now, but I’m hopeful.