Editorial
Sarah Jones
Report
Civil disagreement isn’t dead; it’s just in hiding. As a child, I remember sitting in my father’s pick-up truck and listening to old men outside our local feed store bicker about politics. Democrats and Republicans would come together for ice-cold beers, uncomfortable folding chairs, and hours of good-natured arguing over whatever had just happened in the news.
The idea of being “caught” by the “other side” and made to discuss our differences fills most of us with cold dread and a burning desire to leap out the nearest window. People don’t argue unless they have a computer or cellphone firmly between us and reality. What has changed? What if people could be wrong without being considered unkind?
There are three important steps people need to take as a society to revive civil disagreement: first, they need to get away from the computer and have face-to-face conversation; second, they need to change what “winning” means in an argument; and third, they need to realize that being wrong can be a positive experience.
The first step in saving civil disagreement is to stop arguing over the internet. On the internet is it is too easy to become convinced that the person on the other end of the debate is stupid and therefore worthless. If people argue face to face, they may actually have a chance of saying something worthwhile.
“The internet has been a boon and a curse to teenagers,” says J. K. Rowling, although she could just as easily be talking about the impact of the internet on all of humanity. More and more, the internet has become a world of hate and argument where conversation dies in a hail of insults and name-calling. People use the internet like a shield, and there are things they say online that they would never say to someone’s face.
The second step is to understand that the point of the civil disagreement is not to change the other person’s mind, but to understand the other person’s perspective. This change in how people perceive an argument mean that “winning” said argument would mean understanding the other side, not forcing the other side to agree with their point of view.
Instead of screaming insults and bullying the “other side” into admitting defeat, people might listen carefully to the opposition’s argument in order to actually understand not only what they are saying by why they are saying it. This could lead to shared learning, which might lead further to shared understanding.
Lastly, humanity needs to change its negative perspective on being wrong.
“I love being wrong because that means in that instant, I learned something new that day,” says Neil deGrasse Tyson. All human beings are flawed and therefore can be wrong due to either ignorance or misunderstanding. Being wrong isn’t something to shy away from or avoid, merely something to learn from.
Obviously, fixing the way we communicate is much more complicated than a three-step process. The nature of conflict is far too complex for a simple solution. However, throwing down the shields we hide behind, redefining what we perceive as winning and admitting when we are wrong are a few simple steps that humanity can and should take to begin the difficult task of relearning how to communicate with each other once again.
Leave a Reply