Can we still have civil disagreement?
And if so, how? Here are four steps. (Note how I don't claim they're "easy.")
Back in the day when
and I were co-leading BlogHer, the site was known for its strong community guidelines, fair and *human* moderation, and therefore for its ability to host civil discourse, including civil disagreement.We’d all be forgiven if we wondered whether such a thing would be possible these days.
I know that our American members are getting this newsletter on a consequential Election Day, and I know that even our non-American members probably believe the results are consequential to them too. The internet, including professional platform LinkedIn, is flooded with how-to pieces about staying calm, self-regulating, managing anxiety, and so on. I considered such a piece myself…I freely give advice about how to manage anxiety and stay focused during consequential elections.
But today, instead, let me do a different How-to.
How to have civil disagreement during fraught times
No one is a statistic. When you’re talking to someone, don’t make them representative of a stat or assume they’re aligned with some seemingly similar person you saw interviewed or quoted. Don’t assume you know what they’re thinking or why they think it.
Since you don’t know, ask questions, and then really listen to their answers. In keeping with #1 above about not making assumptions, get curious not just about who they are but how they came to be that way. Try to stop yourself from formulating a rapid response before they even finish answering your questions. It’s OK for there to be pauses in conversations when people are learning new information about each other. We all need time to process. Instead of “why do (or more likely, how can) you think that?” try using a question that sounds more open, like “How did you come to that belief?” or “I’ve never heard that…do you have someone or something I can read to learn more about it?”
You may have heard “attack ideas, not people.” I’d add “think adjectives, not nouns.” In other words, it’s similar to how both parents and people managers alike are told to praise or criticize around behavior, not character. Behavior, ideas, positions, opinions, outcomes. I’d also probably say if you want to keep things civil, replace “attack” with, again, “question” or “push back on.”
Respect your own capacity. I have a guiding principle I often put on repeat: I’m here to be helpful, not argue with strangers on the Internet. And I often follow that by saying, that it is not my “ministry.” For some people having those debates is their ministry…they’re good at it; they keep their cool; it doesn’t drive them into a state of existential dread. Pete Buttigieg seems to be that guy, for example. I am not that guy. And it’s OK if you are or you are not. And it’s OK if it changes day to day. You are not required to continue even a civil debate indefinitely. It’s OK to say, “you know, I’ve reached my capacity for discussing this. I need to re-direct my energy now.” You control your boundaries. Only you know the state of your mental health and energy and the size of your to-do list.
I know it’s hard to focus today, so I’m keeping this one brief. If you’ve got other tips for how to have civil disagreement and discourse, please do share, I have a feeling we will put all this advice to good use in the coming weeks.
The point you make about respecting your own capacity is so wise. Know thyself....and in my case, I think I'm at capacity for election debate and information intake and it is time to redirect my energy. I'm going to do my best to take care of myself and hope for the best vs. obsess today!