Political discourse. What do these two words mean to you? Is it what we witness daily on the news? Sensationalism, exaggeration of events, aggressively putting forward one’s points, and a total disregard for the opposing person’s views. Is this the meaning of political discourse? Or is it a respectful and genuine effort between two people to find common ground? In a world as polarized and torn as ours, a mature style of discourse is very rare to come by. However, if we do want to help reduce angst amongst the masses, we must endeavour to bridge the gap between both sides of the aisle.
You may be wondering, how do I find common ground with someone who has always shown anger and hostility toward my group? A study conducted by a political scientist at the University of Maryland aimed to differentiate between social polarization and issue-position polarization. They found that political emotion and behaviour are influenced by how strongly one identifies with one political party. The strength of political identification is what predicts bias and anger, even though one’s position on issues may be moderate. The next time you are apprehensive to talk with a political counterpart, remember that, they may seem angry towards your group, but their positions on issues may be closer to yours than you think!
Moreover, a study conducted by Feinberg and Willer provides some interesting findings on the significance of moral arguments when engaging in difficult political conversations. One of the topics they discussed was “same-sex marriages” and they studied the persuasiveness of the different moral arguments used for this topic. Traditionally, the moral argument that liberals use to justify same-sex marriages is fairness and equal rights to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. However, the researchers found that by reframing the moral argument and justifying same-sex marriages through the idea of loyalty to a single partner, they were more likely to persuade conservatives who were against same-sex marriages. This is significant because it shows that if people were to reframe their argument in a way that it supports the moral views of their counterpart, they were more likely to persuade them.
How does one begin to have such respectful and meaningful discussions? Two skills we can adopt to have conversations with a disagreeing other are:
Asking questions: Two studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of receptiveness during a difficult dialog. They found that when the listener was instructed to ask a question or show interest, the person speaking was more likely to rate their partner favourably. Also, when the listener was instructed to ask a question, it was found that there were more chances that they would be more receptive and open-minded to their partner’s opposing idea.
Taking the perspective of your counterpart: A study aimed to learn the significance of perspectives during an ideological conflict. It looked at two different types of conflict: between White Americans and Mexicans and between Israelis and Palestinians. The researchers found that when their participants were asked to place themselves in the shoes of the conflicting other (perspective-taking), they were able to develop a much more favourable attitude towards that person and their group.
There are a few organizations that attempt to provide spaces for these difficult conversations and also empower people with the skills they would require for the same. For instance, AllSides aims to act as a balanced news source by providing perspectives from the Right, Left, and Centre on all top news stories in America. They also provide the bias ratings of various media outlets so that the user can make an informed decision about where to consume news from. However, their most influential projects are the RedBlue dictionary and the Mismatch Program. The dictionary is an attempt by AllSides to take hot button words that are often used in political discourse and explain how those words mean different things to different people. Further, their Mismatch program works like a dating app that aims to match you with your “political other.” These matches then engage in one-on-one video conferencing where the goal is to simply understand where the opposite person is coming from with their views.
An organization that attempts to provide people with the skills to engage in challenging conversations is OpenMind. This is a psychology-based platform that attempts to develop intellectual humility, respect, and a mutual understanding between people who have differing viewpoints. They do so through their comprehensive and elaborate intervention program that provides all the tools one may need to engage in difficult conversations.
Further, there is the Greater Good Science Centre that attempts to bridge the differences between people who have differing views. They have created a Playbook that provides people with all the skills they require at an interpersonal, intrapersonal, and intergroup level. These skills would then empower people to develop respect and an understanding of differing viewpoints. Examples of the skills that the playbook provide are practicing mindfulness, finding common goals during a conversation, and understanding the opposite person’s values.
Most existing theories on conflictual conversations state that developing learning goals (understanding the counterpart’s perspective) within oneself could lead to more positive conversation outcomes. However, an ongoing paper by Collins, Dorison, Minson, and Gino found something interesting. Their data shows that most people who are about to enter a conflictual conversation believe that even though they would like to learn their counterpart’s views, their counterpart would not like to do the same. Participants rated their perception of their own learning goals as significantly higher than their perception of their counterpart’s learning goals.
As similar research comes to light, we may have to develop theories that can accommodate the individual’s perception of their counterpart’s goals and motives. A good place to start with that could be Barna’s theory on stumbling blocks to intercultural communication.
Barna proposes certain obstacles that hamper the effectiveness of intercultural communication. He theorized that when two people belonging to different cultures attempt to communicate, the effectiveness of the communication is hampered because the interactants do not share the same ground rules. People tend to focus on non-verbal behaviours and fail to grasp the content of the messages. This leads to misunderstandings and a hindrance in the flow of the conversation.
What if Barna’s theory could be applied in the context of political conversations? If such a theory could be employed to elaborately explain the hindrances that occur within a difficult political conversation, then we could develop effective methods to overcome those hindrances. We could then eventually arrive at a template on how people who differ in political views could have meaningful and respectful conversations.
Vinay Sukhija
