Many of us fearfully anticipate this upcoming post-election Thanksgiving holiday, worried that angry political arguments will tear our families apart. We can't talk to each other, we don't want to and we don't know how.
We no longer seem to think of the opposing party as people we disagree with. We think, however, that they are bad people. Our political opinions are dominated by deeply felt grievances, from both the left and the right. Now we only see extremism on the other side.
There is an antidote to this evil disintegration. Drawing on more than 40 years as a child and family therapist, helping families communicate with greater openness and empathy, I will offer some advice.
Successful debate over any major disagreement is based on a simple premise: we must listen to each other. But listening is difficult, especially in most political debates, when we are not really listening: we are waiting for an opportunity to present our arguments and defend our position.
Listening is first an attitude, then a skill. To listen more constructively, we must take the time to learn about the people with whom we disagree: the tensions, anxieties and grievances they experience, the injustices they see, the values they try to live by, and the stories that inspire them.
When we make an effort to learn about someone's life beyond politics, we will almost always find some common experience or shared value, something we can understand and affirm, even with people whose political views are antithetical to our own. When we listen this way, we take several steps away from repetitive, unproductive discussion toward a new form of conversation: we have started a dialogue.
It is helpful to understand the difference between a dialogue and a debate. The purpose of a debate is to win an argument, based on the assumption that there is a correct answer (and I have it). In a dialogue, we recognize that another person's thinking can improve our own and a novel solution can emerge. We seek to discover new possibilities, not try to change someone's opinion.
Political arguments are often formulated as a forced choice between opposing opinions. However, in a dialogue it is much more important to understand someone's concerns and then, in response, express our concerns. A conversation about concerns is very different from one about opinions. We debate opinions; We discuss concerns.
When we talk about problems in this way, we may find that although we disagree about the causes of the problems or what to do about them, we often share concerns. Even when we don't, chances are most of the concerns are understandable, something we might share in other circumstances.
We must also consider the ideas of others with greater charity and consider our own with more humility. Humility requires us to accept that there are facts we do not know and perspectives we may not have considered about any policy or political issue. Charity and humility are antidotes to certainty and are too often absent from political arguments.
So our best discussions move away from ideology and toward pragmatism, which revolves around what works and what doesn't. The language of pragmatism is conditional, not absolute. To turn an ideological statement – a statement of conviction or belief – into a pragmatic question, we can ask: “in what cases, under what conditions, and to what extent?” Pragmatic arguments also reduce our tendency toward personal attacks, creating disagreements about how to solve a problem, not about who you are.
These changes – from debate to dialogue; from opinions to concerns; from certainty to humility; and from ideology to pragmatic solutions, allow for much more successful debates among both families and political opponents.
Of course, it is not always possible to have constructive political conversations. Dialogue requires both a will and a degree of discipline that are difficult to maintain. In politics, sometimes we need to argue and debate. And even when dialogue works, despite its many benefits, it is only a first step.
Still, we can start with a small change. Brief moments of empathy and recognition of someone's concerns convey a willingness to listen that almost always leads to some softening of our defensiveness and the harshness of our judgments, on both sides. Small changes can kick-start a positive cycle of listening and understanding: listening begets listening, empathy begets empathy, and the next conversation will be a little easier.
As citizens, we can't do much to change the way politicians speak, except with our votes. But we can change the way we listen to and talk to each other.
Kenneth Barish is the author of “Bridging Our Political Divide: How Liberals and Conservatives Can Understand Each Other and Find Common Ground,” from which this article is adapted. He is a clinical professor of psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City.
