Civil Discourse as Defense

Professor J,

Civil discourse: Isn't this where we came in? After 3 years of discussing it and 2 years of publicly championing the cause, this week we were shown, a bit closer to home, the desperate need for it and the damage caused by the lack of it. Thanks to social networking and our ability to be voyeurs in a digital age we've both seen people participate this week in ways that made us cringe.

Civil Discourse, anyone?

Civil discourse is like that old joke about the weather: Everyone talks about it but no one ever does anything about it.

We could imagine what a nation full of educated citizens
(I know, one problem at at time, right?) who could work together to solve problems could get done. A country would be very strong indeed if its inhabitants could listen to one another and look for the best solutions possible instead of wanting to be right. We also have come to believe that anyone with an opinion different from ours is either idiotic or that their intent is an evil one. We no longer imagine that the other person has taken facts into account and come to a different conclusion about what the best course of action might be. We see less and less people who are willing to respectfully disagree or compromise. In fact, compromise has become a dirty word.

This attitude has grown more prevalent since everyone shouting at each other somehow became part of the news. This style of "debate" has seeped out of the cable box and into the population. John Maxwell said (I'm paraphrasing) we need to value people more than our opinions.  A lot of our lack of civil discourse is a result of our disconnection. So many discussions today take place in a relationship vacuum. What is the point of going to all the trouble of listening or spending time explaining your viewpoint to someone you don't know? No need for tact and diplomacy when there is no relationship to protect or when the relationship is viewed as less important than winning the argument.

 Finding common ground, even if you really have to dig for it, goes a long way in getting the other person to listen. It says "I value your opinion." You can hash out all the details where you disagree later, but pointing out areas where you have commonality shows the other person you are willing to meet them halfway.

Are we capable of taking our emotions, putting them aside for the sake of discussion or are we going to let our feelings override our thinking?  Are we sharing information and discussing things to look for the truth? Can we all agree that the TRUTH is more important than having our previously held opinion confirmed? If all we want to hear (really listen to and take to heart) are opinions that agree with ours (confirmation bias), and we lose our ability to learn, rethink, and reevaluate, then we are no longer being intellectually honest. Beyond that we just turn into mouthpieces for one side or the other, instead of thinkers. At that point we are just being used. The powers that be benefit greatly from our inability to have a rational and reasoned debate about things.

Here's a prior blog post about why some of us are more averse to change than others: This Is Your Brain of Fear.

But I would say we don't need to just have our ideas and opinions challenged by others. We need to be constantly sifting our thinking and challenging ourselves. We need to constantly be on the lookout for new information so that we can marvel at how much we don't know. That makes it possible to entertain that troubling thought...that due to misinformation, misunderstanding, or misreading events we could be...wrong. People who are on a quest for truth are going to have to admit that from time to time.

If we did a better job at not imitating the boorish behavior we see in the media we might be able to use civil discourse as a defense against small mindedness, division, and ignorance. Who knows,  we might even learn to stop only defending our opinions and learn to defend each other.