July 16, 2024

|

Rebecca Donaway, Ph.D. | Communication Studies

It should come as no surprise that Republicans and Democrats have an increasingly negative view of each other. This trend, called affective polarization by political scientists, has been growing for the past two decades. Public opinion polls regularly find that both sides perceive the other as “close-minded, dishonest, unintelligent, and immoral.” This growing partisan animosity is evident when we read the news and scroll our social media sites. This makes it difficult to have meaningful conversations with those whom we disagree (a fact on which most Republicans and Democrats agree). Despite all of this, political talk is quite important: it helps us develop better arguments, increases our knowledge and tolerance of other positions, encourages further political engagement, and is fundamental to decision-making in a democracy. But most days, it can feel impossible.

To be fair, we do not have productive, healthy discussion modeled for us in many places. At the end of the day, none of us like being told to “get educated” or “stop being sheep.” Have you ever wanted to change your mind after someone called you stupid? Me either. We also do not enjoy being yelled at, called names, or having our opinions simplified. And yet, much of the way politics are discussed on cable news or in the comment sections of a news post do exactly that. It would be easy to embrace cynicism and just disengage, but I want to argue that as members of the Gonzaga community, we are uniquely positioned to respond in this exact moment. I will point us to two pieces of guidance, steeped in Jesuit tradition, that can support us in this most important work of conversing with our neighbors.

First, let us look at The Presupposition. Offered as a sort of ground rule at the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises, Ignatian Presupposition suggests we should presume good intentions of others, ask questions curiously, and offer corrections kindly. Next, let us consider Ignatius’ advice to the Jesuits attending the Council of Trent: to “understand the meaning, learnings, and wishes of those who speak.” It is my suggestion that we pair the second part of the Presupposition (get curious) with the instruction to really understand those speaking to us to work our way out of this mess. Modern communication scholars would call this kind of conversation, dialogue. Dialogue occurs between two people interested in learning more about the other and the positions they hold. It is inherently different from debate or diatribe, with the former being focused on advancing a position and winning, and the latter is more like venting or yelling. We are doing plenty of debate and diatribe: it is not helping. When our goals are focused on taking someone down with a crafty argument or making a public mockery of another person, this creates distance between folks. And, in the absence of talking to each other, the only ways we come to know what the other side thinks is to hear their viewpoints summed up in the media or one-off anecdotes. At best, we start to lump the other side all together and at worst we dehumanize people all together. These ways of thinking and talking about each other are causing harm. I believe our way through this is dialogue.

So, how do we do dialogue? Dialogue is about listening and learning. That’s it. A successful dialogue session is not oriented toward persuasion or swapping statistics. Dialogue’s only goal is to learn what the other person thinks and values. This is a necessary step, both to reopening channels of communication but also to creating any sort of meaningful persuasion. I want to offer some concrete steps you can take to start talking with others. 

1. Before dialogue, remind yourself of the goal: to be curious and humble so you can learn.

It may be helpful to say this explicitly to the person you are talking to. It might sound like, “You know, I was hoping that you could tell me more about your opinion on the upcoming legislation. I don’t want to debate the merits of the issue, but I do want to learn about what you think.”

2. During dialogue, stay silent.

You might notice that silent and listen share the same letters, that is for good reason. Listen to hear, not to prepare your own arguments. Remember, our goal is to learn, not advance our own ideas (yet). Practice helpful nonverbals: nod when they speak, look at them, avoid rolling your eyes or sighing. Ask questions and then reflect what you hear. That could sound like, “Could you tell me more about the downsides you see of this law? It sounds like you’re worried about the cost of implementing this, is that right?” Where you can, acknowledge good points, validate them, and point out places of agreement. “I think the cost is a real concern, too, and I think that is a smart thing for us to consider moving forward.” This goes a long way in keeping your discussion partner talking. Keep breathing. You may find yourself getting upset. It is okay to ask for a break or to slow the conversation down. It is important to signal your intention to end the conversation and the next steps you want to take while you are still in control of your emotions. That could sound like, “I’m really grateful for you talking to me about this. You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’d like to stop here for today, but I’m wondering if we could meet again for coffee to keep talking about this?”

3. After dialogue, take some time to reflect.

What did you learn? How are you feeling? You might lean on a like-minded friend to decompress or vent to about the experience. Offer yourself some compassion – you just did a really hard thing because you care about your community. Think about what steps should come next: do you want to talk to another person who disagrees with you? Do you have new questions? Also, it will be important to consider what kinds of messages you share in your social media feeds. Are you sharing content that invites conversation or makes fun of those who differently from you? That is, if you are the only Republican or Democrat in someone’s circle, do you seem like a person they would trust to engage with?

To be sure, participating in dialogue will not solve all our problems. It will take more than some dialogic conversations to repair what has been broken. But we are well-equipped. Our Jesuit tradition charges us with working toward social transformation. We say that we are educating for the common good; that we care about dignity, justice, diversity, and solidarity. How can we do those things from the sidelines? How can we be people for and with others if we are not willing to talk to each other? This will not be easy, but I believe it is worth it.