Talking to people we disagree with is hard. We should do it anyway.<\/i><\/p>\n
Disagreement is nothing new. As long as there have been choices, there have been differences of opinion. While it has always been gratifying to engage with like-minded people, there seems to have been a fundamental shift in recent years: a reluctance, or even complete refusal, to interact with those who hold dissimilar perspectives. The days of amicably \u201cagreeing to disagree\u201d have been replaced with an absolute intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Disagreement has become debilitating and demoralizing.<\/p>\n
Nowhere is this destructive divisiveness more apparent than in the realm of political ideology. A 2016 Pew survey on partisanship and political animosity revealed a widespread contempt for Republicans among Democrats and for Democrats among Republicans. In fact, for the first time in the survey\u2019s 24-year history, majorities in both parties expressed not just unfavorable but very<\/i> unfavorable views of the other party. According to the Pew study, these feelings were not limited to our opinions of political parties and their platforms. These attitudes were personal<\/i>, with a significant number of respondents characterizing those holding opposing political views as closed-minded, immoral, lazy, dishonest, and\/or unintelligent.1<\/sup><\/p>\n Making a Choice<\/strong><\/p>\n Now the good news: it doesn\u2019t have to be this way. Authors Sarah Holland and Beth Silvers remind us in their timely book I Think You\u2019re Wrong (but I\u2019m Listening): A Guide to Grace-filled Political Conversations<\/i> that \u201cthe most important thing to know about the polarization in American politics is that we are choosing it. We are choosing division. We are choosing conflict. We are choosing to turn our civic sphere into a circus. We are choosing all of this, and we can choose otherwise.\u201d2<\/sup><\/p>\n While I\u2019ve worked in the field of religious liberty for more than 20 years, in 2018 I began advocating for the religious freedom interests of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its members on Capitol Hill. Aware of Washington\u2019s hyper-partisan reputation, I realized I needed to do more than just represent my faith tradition in the halls of Congress. My responsibility was not just to communicate my church\u2019s positions, but to do so in a manner consistent with my faith\u2019s core mission and values. In other words, I needed to \u201cchoose otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n That intentionality has been rewarded in both its effectiveness and reciprocity. I\u2019ve been able to establish productive relationships with government representatives and lobbyists representing a diversity of political positions. Through mutual respect and a genuine desire for understanding, we\u2019ve been able to identify common goals and priorities, and make substantive progress in responding to the very real problems around us.<\/p>\n Prioritizing People<\/strong><\/p>\n Finding common ground doesn\u2019t have to mean compromising one\u2019s values or principles. In my experience, finding opportunities for dialogue with people holding radically different views has strengthened rather than weakened my existing beliefs. Tactfully engaging with those with whom we fundamentally disagree is often the quickest way to clarify and affirm our own positions. At the same time, we\u2019re expanding our empathy for others.<\/p>\n In their 2017 TEDWomen Talk \u201cFree Yourself From Your Filter Bubbles,\u201d Joan Blades and John Gable touted the benefits of making friends with people who vote differently than we did.<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not have to agree on the issues,\u201d they said. \u201cIn fact, disagreement can be good, at least when we truly listen to understand the merits of the arguments and the people with them.\u201d<\/p>\n Finding creative solutions to sharing space in a diverse society isn\u2019t easy. But relationships built on mutual respect and understanding can result in the achievement of a variety of shared objectives. By leading with the acknowledgment of the inherent dignity and value of our fellow humans\u2014what Christians refer to as recognizing the imago Dei<\/i>\u2014we can more easily separate people from policy positions. When we engage from a posture of grace, humility, and, dare I say, love for one another, we\u2019re able to respect and even defend our differences rather than vilify each another. In other words, we don\u2019t have to be disagreeable in our disagreements.<\/p>\n Beyond Winning<\/strong><\/p>\n Harvard Business School researcher and professor Francesca Gino suggests that motive matters when we enter difficult conversations. She notes that \u201cwhen we do engage with people whose views clash with ours, we typically try to convince them to abandon their point of view in favor of ours. Assuming that we\u2019re right and they\u2019re wrong, we fight for our perspective and try to \u2018win\u2019 the argument.\u201d3<\/sup><\/p>\n As a Christian, I\u2019m granted the welcome freedom that comes with the recognition that it\u2019s not my responsibility to convince or convict others. That\u2019s the job of the Holy Spirit. But not only is persuasion not my calling, it\u2019s typically an ineffective mechanism for change.<\/i><\/p>\n Gino offers a better approach: <\/strong>\u201cWhen we appear receptive to listening to and respecting others\u2019 opposing positions, they find our arguments to be more persuasive\u2026\u200a. In addition, receptive language is contagious: It makes those with whom we disagree more receptive in return.\u201d<\/p>\n Our nation faces very real challenges, not least of which is the destructive divisiveness of its public discourse. By recognizing the individual and collective benefits that come from healthy civil engagement, we can work together to create positive change.<\/p>\n As Holland and Silvers say: \u201cThere is a way to talk about politics that leaves you inspired instead of depleted. There is a way to engage with each other that could (as it has in the distant past) lead to consensus and solutions, innovations, and improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n Rather than disengaging, antagonizing, or demonizing those with differing perspectives, let\u2019s return to kindly \u201cagreeing to disagree\u201d while working toward opportunities for partnership in the spaces in which we hold shared visions and values.<\/p>\n 1 \u201cPartisanship and Political Animosity in 2016: Highly Negative Views of the Opposing Party\u2013and Its Members,\u201d Pew Research Center, June 22, 2016, https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2016\/06\/22\/.partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016\/<\/p>\n 2 Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth A. Silvers, I Think You\u2019re Wrong (but I\u2019m Listening): A Guide to Grace-filled Political Conversations <\/i>(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2020).<\/p>\n 3 Francesca Gino, \u201cDisagreement Doesn\u2019t Have to Be Divisive,\u201d Harvard Business Review<\/i>, Nov. 16, 2020.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Talking to people we disagree with is hard. We should do it anyway. Disagreement is nothing new. As long as there have been choices, there have been differences of opinion. While it has always been gratifying to engage with like-minded people, there seems to have been a fundamental shift in recent years: a reluctance, or<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[354],"tags":[186],"class_list":["post-6665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-august-2023","tag-july-august-2023"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}