After Kirk’s Killing, a Crisis of Mattering (opinion)

After Charle Kirk’s assassination one year ago, I joined many others in condemning the shooting as abhorrent and antithetical to civil society. In an attempt to derive a lesson from this tragedy, I suggested focusing more on active listening skills, rhetorical techniques and intellectual humility. I still believe those things are important, but they only address part of the problem: Even people with those skills falter when trying to speak across differences. 

Violence has filled the void left by the failure of dialogue, but that void is not merely rhetorical. My years as a scholar of rhetoric, my experiences speaking with those who disagree with me vehemently, my time in civic-engagement initiatives and my work as an educator have led me to this conclusion: Dialogue does not matter to people convinced that they, themselves, don’t matter. 

We are in a crisis of mattering. Feelings of loneliness, political impotence and low self-regard seem to be growing. Those feelings may eclipse the mere possibility that one will feel heard, respected and endowed with a sense of mattering. 

America’s crisis of political violence may be the result of a deeper crisis of mattering.

Social psychologists define mattering as the perception that we make a difference in the world around us. Generally, scholars agree that a sense of mattering is derived from one’s perceived ability to feel valued or add value. Those who neither feel valued nor think they can add value suffer from what psychologist Gordon Flett calls “anti-mattering”: the internalized conviction that one is invisible and insignificant. A person experiencing anti-mattering can come to believe they are not worth listening to. 

Sadly, people in want of a sense of mattering often conclude that violence can provide a form of empowerment, even if it is counterfeit. In 2025, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified 74 violent attacks and disrupted plots for violence in the U.S., a 27 percent increase over the previous year. A year after Kirk’s assassination, a recent survey reports that, when asked to identify “the biggest threat to the safety of average Americans,” 33 percent chose “domestic terrorism” and 42 percent chose random acts of violence (e.g., mass shootings), while just 20 percent identified foreign threats. On the eve of the 25th anniversary of Sept. 11, those numbers are striking. Violence remains relatively rare, but a consequential minority considers it justifiable for some political objectives, a proportion that rose modestly from 2024 to 2025.

Loneliness and alienation, to be clear, do not necessarily make someone violent, but research on domestic radicalization suggests how they can become dangerous. Researchers have found that economic and social losses of significance predicted violence among perpetrators of ideologically motivated crimes. Significance-quest theory explains the intervening process: A personal need for significance encounters an ideological narrative that portrays violence as meaningful and a social network prepared to recognize and applaud the perpetrator’s actions. Violence then becomes a perverse method of adding value. Words can be ignored. Bullets, however, have a way of demanding our attention. 

Mattering, then, should be a primary topic of conversation for those who want and believe in civil society. If violence offers alienated people a way to feel powerful, to feel like they matter, then civil discourse must offer something better. It must offer the power to act without dominating, to matter without making enemies and to be heard without making others disappear.

But how do we do that?

Organizations attempting to answer that question have emerged. Harvard University’s Mattering Initiative believes that when students have a strong sense of mattering, “they deepen connections, have a sense of meaning and purpose, and are less likely to experience loneliness, anxiety, and depression.” This initiative emerged in collaboration with the Mattering Movement, a nonprofit started by scholar Sarah Bennison and journalist Jennifer Wallace. Bennison has gone on to found Mattering in Action, which translates mattering research into actual curricula, teacher tool kits and campus initiatives, while Wallace has gone on to found the Mattering Institute, which offers leadership training and “mattering audits” for a variety of types of organizations. Zach Mercurio, author of The Power of Mattering, offers classes and workshops on instilling mattering into workplace culture.

The work of mattering is being done, but it has not yet been applied specifically to prevent political violence. This must change. We must see mattering as a civic and violence-prevention program. Organizations like Braver Angels and initiatives like the Beacon Project are adjacent; they seek to promote dialogue to prevent violence. But in order to promote dialogue, we need to promote mattering.

Mattering may not be a panacea. After all, no mattering initiative can prevent every violent act. Yet if our response to political violence consists only of condemning murder and teaching rhetorical skills, we leave a deeper problem untouched. When dialogue fails, the answer is not simply better speech—it is the creation of a civil society in which speech offers people a genuine sense of mattering. Civil discourse necessitates citizens who believe they matter. Helping people acquire that belief is the next step toward preventing tragedies like the killing of Charlie Kirk.