Image Source: Fanpop.com
By Laura Finley/Common Dreams
Disagreement is an essential component of a healthy relationship, a healthy workplace, and a healthy democracy. Much research documents the dangers of surrounding ourselves with so-called “yes men” who always concur. Workplace echo chambers stifle innovation and reify bad policy decisions. Disagreement stimulates creative thinking and prompts innovation.
Yet, there is indeed a peaceful, even collaborative, way to disagree. And, I contend, that it never involves personal insults, ad hominem attacks, and strings of epithets and curse words.
Unfortunately, it seems as though few in the U.S are taught how to disagree peacefully and constructively. Instead, if we read, hear or see something that bothers us, we tend to get all pissy about it and, rather than present our case, resort to the lowest blows we can. This behavior is, of course, modeled at nearly every turn.
It is difficult to remember any politician in the recent past who has not decided that the way to offer a contrasting view is to rip the crap out of his or her opponent. As bad (sometimes worse) is media, where television pundits (and I note, both conservative and liberal) seem to love nothing more than to invite guests onto their shows to interrupt them, yell at them, berate them, and otherwise set them up to look foolish. In professional sports, having the best trash-talker on your team is often viewed as an asset. K-12 schools reinforce the normalcy of mean-spirited disagreement when they fail to hold accountable those who denigrate those with whom they disagree. Popular culture encourages the “othering” of the alleged opposition. For just one example, the t-shirt company David and Goliath offers a shirt that says, “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”
My recent experience authoring op-eds illustrates the issue perfectly. I authored a piece about the bureaucratic stifling of activism. In the op-ed, I encouraged folks who disagree with my positions to share their viewpoints, as dialogue and disagreement can lead to amazingly creative social change from the synthesis of the best parts of different arguments. While I did receive some pleasant feedback, I also received one very disturbing piece of hate email.
Not only did this anonymous emailer attack me personally, using hateful slurs, but s/he also failed to see the point I was making, which was precisely that we should not all agree but should not stifle those who do not see things our way.
I implore those who are reading this to understand what I am saying: I do not have all the answers. I never suggested I did. No one does. And I think it is amazing when people get worked up about an issue or a cause and take that passion to the streets, to the airwaves, to the print media and anywhere else they can find an audience. But please, do so in a peaceful, respectful manner. We really can learn from one another if we discuss and debate, rather than attack.
Source
Latest posts by Source (see all)
- And Then They Came for the Vietnamese… - December 13, 2018
- Amazon’s Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door - December 13, 2018
- 140+ Arrested as Youth-Led Protests Demand Green New Deal on Capitol Hill - December 11, 2018
I, heartily, agree with Laura Finley about the trend in many of our organizational gatherings to rant and rave at each other, rather than to pleasantly disagree with those opposed to our point of view. Regularly, we hear about this taking place, even in the U.S. Congress. I have seen this type of disrespectful behavior take place at a local meeting of my Member of Congress, Susan Davis.
Simultaneously, there has grown up in recent years a whole body of practice in the process arts to facilitate ways we can relate to each other in a courteous and wholesome manner in order to accomplish something from the meeting. To give an example of this. There was an assassination at an abortion clinic in Boston, Massachusetts which got both sides of the matter extremely upset with each other. The Public Conversations Project was brought in to try to ameliorate the situation and to get the two parties talking to each other. As a precondition of their participation each side had to agree to address the other side in a way that that side wanted to be addressed and in a courteous manner. They agreed to do so. The two sides not only met and had a productive meeting, but continued to meet, regularly, throughout the next year.
It goes to show you that there are ways in which the most seriously opposed people can relate to each other, if there is the will to do so, and excellent instruction as to how to go about it. I have been part of the Tijuana-San Diego Process Arts Network which has encompassed such process arts as: Appreciative Inquiry, Dynamic Facilitation, World Cafe, Open Space Technology, et al. I am also a part of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation which holds regular, instructive conferences on these matters. Many business and governmental groups hire experts from these organizations to facilitate internal meetings that help them through difficult times.
We no longer have to continue to put up with unproductive gatherings because of some disruptive elements. Instead we must plan how we can go about getting a great deal more done by relating to each other in a cooperative and respectful manner.
Nice article, thanks! Another skill to hone is the ability to change your mind and update your understanding based on new information. There is a group that specializes in this rational train of thought that I recently stumbled upon looking for something unrelated: the LessWrong.org blog. They have a wiki page with resources to learn how to reason and stay open to new information to avoid the positionality and dogma that cause us to fight instead of reason with each other.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind