Citizen Spotlight: Media Maven Swati Srivastava

View the interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.

This month’s Citizen Spotlight shines a light on Swati Srivastava who says that to unite the “exhausted majority” of Americans who crave unity, kindness and sanity, we need to narrate a new story of hope.

A software engineer turned independent writer, voice-over artist, and filmmaker, Swati is the head of Tired and Beat Up Productions. Two years ago, she established the Long Island chapter of Crossing Party Lines, a common ground movement organization that fosters civil discussion among people with differing viewpoints.

She’s not only the director of visual media for CPL, but also part of the leadership team at her local chapter of Braver Angels, another national civil discussion group focused on depolarization. A natural at partnerships, she’s worked with CPL, Braver Angels, her local cinema arts center, and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship to create a series of conversations, film screenings, and workshops. One example of the latter is a workshop called Cultivating Courageous Connections, which combines the Braver Angels’ Depolarize Within workshop with improv, games, and play. Besides moderating conversations, Swati uses media to connect people despite their differences. She believes projecting that message more frequently, and to a much wider audience, could greatly decrease polarization.
She’s created a variety of videos toward that end—Cultivating Courageous Connections, The Secret Sauce, The Braver Angels’ Way—and is currently working on a new bridging media project called The Independent Spirit.

Martha: I recently started an improv class where you’re taught to listen to the story someone starts and build off of it. My two thoughts about the experience were these: first, you really have to listen to what others say, rather than waiting for them to stop so you can say something you’ve prepared. And second, it struck me that this would be a really fun way to reach people and teach them how to connect with those of different political viewpoints.

It’s a lot more fun—and a lot less heavy—than just talking. So I was excited to hear about the workshop you held that used improv and play. Tell us about that workshop. Where did you get the inspiration to try the idea, and how did it go?

Swati: Thank you. Yes, improv is very, very fun. I’m a trained actor and director so improv is a very important tool for both.

And for a while, since I’ve been in the bridging world, I’ve participated in conversations and moderate them.

One thing I became aware of—as wonderful and important as these bridging conversations are—there were two things that bothered me. One was, they’re sometimes overly focused on our red/blue identity. And the other thing I noticed was, they’re very serious. People come in and they discuss politics. And I was thinking, we need to have more fun with these things! We need to bring in humor and play.
So when I designed this workshop, the core was the Depolarizing Within workshop, Braver Angels’ 90-minute program with a moderator running it.

Usually as soon as people enter, we’re given a name tag, right? And we did the same thing—except we said, instead of your own name, choose a historical, fictional, or inspirational character you want to be called by today. So immediately it relieves people from oh, I’m this person, I belong to this party, I’m going to tell everyone my opinions. No. Let’s come into a place of play and fun and ease.

People were giggling, trying to decide what they’d be called that day, and the whole atmosphere changed from the get-go. We had food, we had music, we had these fun name cards. Then we brought them into the conversation and the workshop. I showed one of my videos, Cultivating Courageous Connections—that has cartoons and funny moments, so it lightened things up too.

And then I launched into our first improv game. This is a very common one, it’s called Build a Story. I said, “Okay, we’re going to start with ‘once upon a time,’ and we’ll build a story one sentence at a time.” Since you’ve done improv, Martha, I think you know the most important rule of improv: “yes, and…” Once something is said or done, it becomes a new reality. Now you have to build on top of it. That’s where the creativity is—and it requires you to be very engaged, really listening.

So we did that. I threw out the first prompt: “I met Brad Pitt on the subway,” which has nothing to do with politics! And immediately people were giggling, laughing, wondering what on earth was happening. Someone would add something, and then the next person had to build on that. You can’t go back to what you were thinking 10 minutes ago; you have to stay present.

That openness, that listening, that engagement—it loosened people up right away. Suddenly there was camaraderie and fun. And in that moment, it didn’t matter what people believed politically.

We’re building something together! And that’s the other part of it—building something together, no matter what perspectives, what opinions we have—where something new is emerging. I think all of the stuff that we actually do in our very serious workshops was being fulfilled in this very silly improv game, just with more fun and more ease. When we did the debriefing, they said how much they enjoyed not having an identity—red or blue—and not being totally in their head thinking about serious things, but really playing with each other. That’s something we’ve forgotten.

Martha: So all I have to say is, I want to do this! I want this workshop. I think it would be great. If you’re listening, it’s hard to convey exactly how hard it is to really listen. It makes you realize that most of the time, you’re really not listening to other people. You’re waiting for a chance to reply with some other thought that’s in your head. And then the sense of play is just amazing. So, do you think you’ll be able to hold more of these workshops across America? And what other ideas do you have for getting Americans to see one another as humans, more than enemies?

Swati: Well, I certainly hope that there’ll be more workshops like this. We did write a report of what happened at our workshop, sent it to Braver Angels National, and I suppose they’ve seen it. But I do know that some other chapters, like the Westchester County New York chapter, brought improv in and they also had some success.

I so thoroughly believe that fun games and play—to involve the heart and the body—is so important and quite missing in this particular bridging world right now.

That’s something else that’s missing: compelling narratives. Stories, again, with fun and heart and humor. We’re so serious, we stopped having fun about things. We take ourselves so seriously. So I’m developing that narrative, and I hope that I’ll find more partners and sponsors to work together with and bring some of that out to the world.

Martha: Well, I think it’s safe to say that if people do feel like they’d like to create a more positive narrative, they could contact you via the information on my blog and YouTube channel. That’s correct?

Swati: Yeah, absolutely. Please feel free to contact me.

Martha: So let’s go back a bit. By your accent, I assume you’re from elsewhere. So tell us where you came from, as well as when, and why, and what does America mean to you?

Swati: I grew up in India. And I came here to America as a very young adult. This year is my 25th year in America. My Silver Jubilee and I’m celebrating it.When I was in India, I really wanted to be in America. I heard these fabulous stories, and I wanted to come here, to do things, to find myself, to establish a space, to find my voice as a woman. Many of those things I was able to accomplish here.

I couldn’t have done them in India, so I feel a great sense of debt to America. I am an immigrant, and like many immigrants, I have a very visceral sense of pride and patriotism.

I became a citizen a few years ago. It took me 18 years. First I was on a work visa, then a green card, and then finally citizenship. At my citizenship ceremony, there were people from 80 different countries. I took my oath… and I’m sorry, I can never talk about this moment without getting emotional. That day was so powerful.

I swore to protect and serve the Constitution. I didn’t take it lightly then, and I don’t take it lightly now. This is my duty. I am a patriot, and that’s why I’ve invested so much of myself in this work.

Martha: Are you worried about your status as an American, at this time?

Swati: No—and yes. No, because as I just said, I did everything by the book. My papers, my documents; everything was completely legal from start to finish. So on that level, I don’t have anything to fear.
But yes, because of the environment today. The tide is not very positive toward immigrants. And that has impacts. Over the years, I’ve experienced racism. I’ve heard the comments, “Go back to your effing country.” These things happen, and you deal with them, but…

What worries me more are some of the conversations I hear now. Citizenship in America has always been so sacrosanct. When I hear talk about denaturalizing people based on certain criteria, it makes me wonder: is there a slide happening? Are we on dangerous ground?

Then I remind myself that I’ve been trained in depolarization work. To worry is a slippery slope fallacy, so I tell myself, don’t go there. Also, I trust our institutions. The Supreme Court, back in the 1960s, made rulings that made it very hard to denaturalize people for their political beliefs.

So it’s not comfortable right now. Many immigrants like me—who did everything legally, who paid all the dues—we’re not happy. We feel compassion for those going through struggles right now, but we also worry for ourselves. That’s all the more reason for me to keep doing this work.

Martha: And for you to come on and speak about it, I think that’s really a wonderful thing you’re doing. Thank you.

So when did you become aware that there’s a deep divide among Americans? And what do you think the source is? I imagine when you first came here, you didn’t have much sense of the political climate. It must have taken time before you began to notice.

Swati: Yes, absolutely. When you’re an immigrant, one of the advantages is that you almost always see things from somewhat of an outsider’s perspective. You’re not entrenched. People sometimes say, “Oh, my family were Kennedy Democrats,” or “We were Reagan Republicans.” I didn’t have any family here. I just showed up and built my perspectives as I went. So no, I didn’t come in with those attachments.
I’ve always been very social. I love hosting gatherings at my house, and I have friends across the political spectrum, and still do. Good friends on both sides.

And what I began to notice was this: we’d have people over, and political conversations would happen. Then we’d all move into the dining room for dinner. This was around 2017, after Trump’s first win. One evening, I noticed the tone shift. A few of my more liberal-leaning friends were debating with others, and it started to veer toward contempt.

There was a chill, a coldness that hadn’t been there before. And then one of our friends, when I said, “Okay, let’s move to the dining table, let’s go eat,” this person said, “I’ll take the blue side, please.”

I was just struck. This is my home, these are my friends, they all know each other—and here was someone saying they didn’t want to sit with another person. Because he’d “take the blue side.”
That’s when I realized: wow, something has really shifted. And since then, it’s only gotten worse. In some cases, I’ve become the only friend they have left on the “other side.” My liberal friends have lost their conservative friends, and vice versa. Now, my house is the one place they’ll even come into each other’s presence. And I think, wow, that’s strange. But that’s the reality.

To answer your question about what’s fueling this? Everything. Look at our media. You can’t move around in the world—turn on a radio, cable TV, social media—without breathing in what someone on a Braver Angels podcast recently called “FOG.” Fear, outrage, and grievance.

That’s the air we’re living in. Constantly being told the us-versus-them story: “We are good, they are evil, they are traitors, they are enemies.” Choose your “they.” And of course, where do we run? We’re drinking that Kool-Aid all the time. That’s the world we live in. The system is designed to produce these results, and here we are—completely polarized.

Martha: When you adopted the belief that we need to depolarize America, rather than lean harder into one political party, what kind of reception did you get from family and friends? Were they supportive? Or were some cynical—like, “That’ll never happen,” or “You’re being naïve to think kindness and understanding can win in such an ugly political environment?”

Swati: First of all, I do lean hard during election season. I make political ads for Democrats. I’m a media person, and I have to pay my bills. There are ads I refuse to make because they’re just unpalatable to me.

If there were a purple party, honestly, I would never make another ad for either the blue side or the red side. I’d just stick with purple and make those ads. But here in America, we only get two choices. So yes, I have my views.

At the same time, I’ve invested so much of myself—my personal time, resources, and energy—into doing this depolarization work. It matters that much to me. And when I started on this path, my husband, who’s British, said, “Go forth, do what you need to do.” He’s fully supportive. My friends, though? I’ve heard everything from awe on one end to cynicism on the other. Nobody doubts my integrity. They know I’m coming from a good place, with intelligence. But some say, “This is a unicorn effort, it’s just you, there aren’t others like you.”

And others say, “The other side is too disingenuous, this won’t go anywhere, it won’t be fruitful.” One friend once told me that what I was doing reminded her—because she was so hurt and frustrated—of people trying to make friends with the Nazis in 1930s Germany. That was the harshest remark I ever got.

So yes, I hear all kinds of things. But you need a thick skin when you’re working on the front lines of change.

Martha: Hmm. Wow. I’d assume so. What other comments have you gotten? I’ve found that people don’t trust kindness. They don’t trust the idea that it’s possible to support all Americans, even if you disagree with them.

Swati: Yes, very true. Somehow, I think I get a pass, maybe because I’m an immigrant, or because people see me as different. I don’t think any of my friends mistrust my objectives. They know I’m coming from a place of balance and fairness.

But yes, I still hear cynical things. People say, “Go ahead, but look at this…” and then they send me their version of the story, from their side. That’s the challenge. They send me something they grabbed in 30 seconds on Twitter.

But I can’t just respond like that. I’ll spend hours, sometimes late at night, going through the story in depth, researching both sides, and then writing back carefully. My friends laugh at me for being “the one who writes long.” And I say, yes, because I don’t speak in tweets. You can’t have a nuanced conversation in short form.

So that’s what I do. And despite it all, my home is still a place of peace. When people come here, they’re respectful. Some of them have even started joining our conversations and workshops. And when they experience it for themselves, not just hear me talk about it, the temperature goes down a little. Then I just say, “Come back. Don’t take my word for it, just come back.” And it makes a difference.

Martha: That leads right into the next story I was going to ask you about. In your bio, you mentioned that you believe media can be used much more effectively to convey the message that we share common ground—that we’re better together—and to dismiss this idea that we are enemies.

So, what is the message to Americans that you would like to give, and how willing do you think they are to hear it?

Swati: One of the most important books I’ve ever read is Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Professor Yuval Noah Harari. He charts how this bipedal mammal—us—became the dominant force on Earth. And what he proposes, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that our greatest power is our capacity to tell stories.

We’ve been telling stories since the beginning of time. You can look at cave paintings from thousands of years ago. People were already saying, “This is who we are, this is our tribe, this is our story.” Religion is a story. Human rights are a story. Democracy is a story. These are not tangible things you can hold in your hand like rice. But they’re powerful stories we’ve told ourselves, and we’ve believed them into reality. “We the people.” That’s a story. America itself—what is it, if not a story?

As a child growing up outside the U.S., I was drawn not to a particular patch of land called America, but to the story of America. That story made me want to come here, to be part of it.

So storytelling is crucial. And right now, the story we’re hearing day in and day out is “us versus them.” They are evil. They are traitors. They are enemies. That’s the drumbeat. And we believe it, because it’s repeated and magnified.

But we can tell another story. The story I want Americans to hear is that we are far more alike than we are different. I see this again and again in the conversations and workshops I’ve been part of these last four years. We are a nation of purple people, with red and blue voices on the extremes shouting the loudest. Fear sells, so those extreme voices dominate. But the truth is, the majority of Americans are moderates.

Every election, moderates are forced to choose between just two options, often holding their noses while doing so. If we had more choices, things would look very different.

And yes, I do believe Americans are willing to hear this message. A few years ago, a poll found that the largest percentage of Americans now identify with neither major party. They belong to what’s been called “the exhausted majority.” About 68 to 70 percent of us are exhausted by all the noise.

But the extremes have captured the fort, so to speak. That’s the story they’re selling. The story I want to tell is that we—the exhausted majority, the moderates—can take it back. And when people realize they are not alone, that most of their fellow citizens feel this way too, they get empowered. We get empowered. And that changes everything.

Martha: That feeds into my last question. What would it take to overcome the “conflict entrepreneurs”—the politicians, pundits, parties, big business interests, even hostile nations—that have the money, the tools, the sophisticated messaging to keep dividing Americans?

Swati: Two things come to mind.

First, if America had a legitimate third party—or multiple parties—those conflict entrepreneurs would immediately be weakened. Our two-party system forces everything into a binary system, and that keeps the extremes powerful. Ranked choice voting, for example, would be transformative. Imagine you vote for your number one choice, maybe a Green Party candidate, but if they don’t win, your vote transfers to your second choice. Suddenly, people can vote their conscience without “wasting” their vote. That would change the landscape.

Of course, politicians are the ones blocking that—it’s like asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving. So while I don’t expect it to happen tomorrow, it’s still essential.

Second, something I think about a lot—and that we’re starting to work on in our Long Island Braver Angels Alliance—is bringing back something like the Fairness Doctrine. Some people may remember it: until the late 1980s, broadcasters using the public airwaves were required to present opposing views on controversial issues. Not just their own side, but multiple sides. That ended in 1987 or ’88. Since then, it’s been a free-for-all. And cable news never even had to abide by it in the first place. Now, people can just go straight into their chosen bubble and never hear anything else.

And social media has made things even worse. The algorithms just push the narrative: drink this Kool-Aid—the red one or the blue one—and you never escape. So what do we do?

We’re actually working on something I was very involved in drafting, called the Promote Cognitive Diversity Act. Or as I like to call it, the Make America Think Again Act.

Here’s the idea: right now, social media companies have a special exemption under Section 230 of the Communications Act. That’s something the New York Times doesn’t get, CNN doesn’t get, Fox doesn’t get. They can publish anything, and because they’re not considered publishers, they can’t be sued.
What we’re saying is: fine, they have that exemption, but the algorithm is the publisher. When I search for something and it comes up, that’s one thing. But then the algorithm keeps feeding me more and more of the same, because that’s how they make money. So why isn’t the algorithm treated as a publisher?

Our proposal says: the algorithm is the publisher. Which means social media companies could be sued unless they also show their audience contrarian or opposing content. In other words, they’d have to provide diversity of viewpoints in whatever they’re pushing. That should be a requirement for these companies to function.

It’s something we’re actively working on, and we’re putting it out there to see if we can bring in partners.

Martha: At what level are you sending this out? Are you drafting it with your legislators in Long Island?

Swati: Actually, no, not legislators. This came out of the Braver Angels New York chapter. We drafted it and sent it to Braver Angels National about three weeks ago. We haven’t heard back yet. We know they’re busy. But we’re not beholden to them. This is something we want to discuss with anyone who wants to, and to bring in allies and partners. Anybody you can think of.

Martha: Well, there you go. Anyone listening who likes the idea of holding social media companies and cable news channels accountable for their algorithms—making them fairer and less directed toward negative messaging—you know who to contact.

Swati: Before we end, I saw something this week I want to share. There’s a movie on Amazon Prime called The Elephant in the Room. It’s a romantic comedy by Eric Bork, produced by Bridge Entertainment Labs, which is working on creating bridging media. It’s about a very liberal woman who falls in love with a man who voted for Trump. I watched it, I enjoyed it, and I’d recommend it. I have no stake in it—I just thought it was worth sharing.

Martha: Wonderful! I’m all for people seeing one another as common citizens rather than enemies.

Thank you so much for talking with us today. I really appreciate it.

And thanks again to those of you read this article or listened to the interview.

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.