“Too often we idolize a ‘middle’ stance as more rational, more fair, more loving. We wear it as its own kind of moral superiority. But virtue is not synonymous with neutrality. Sometimes integrity demands a choice.”—Cole Arthur Riley, Black Liturgies

Increasing global tensions and the imminent 2024 US presidential election are prompting significant inquiries into our psychological well-being. The unending flow and access to information; the barrage of strong opinions on social media; and the rapidly changing landscape of geopolitical news can be overwhelming. Because of this, we may have heightened emotions, fear, and worry. It’s no wonder many have opted for a seemingly safe and neutral stance, acknowledging the complexity of a given situation but refraining from expressing a clear opinion. In this heated climate, people hesitate to take a stand so that they can minimize the risks of being ostracized, canceled, and misunderstood. Aligning with the “wrong” side can feel like a significant threat to our identity. Neutrality feels like a safe option.

But is neutrality an effective strategy for psychological well-being? While it can temporarily defend against the threats to our identities, taking a neutral stance is often psychologically incongruent. Psychological congruence is defined as living in alignment with one’s values. Congruence boosts psychological well-being and is associated with greater life........

© Psychology Today