A Look into the Toxic: Thirteen Ways
Political and Social Debate is Done Wrong (Part Two)
Onto the
middle four ways I’ve see so many people both in the public eye and not end up
creating more toxicity in an already toxic environment in politics. As with
Part One, these four do not indicate any malicious intent, do not characterize
anyone who commits one or even all of them as necessarily reprehensible. They
are strategies and methods that end up dividing us more often than bringing
about understanding. As before I’ll not only summarize what these four mistakes
are, but also why they’re so tempting to use (and why we still shouldn’t).
Favoring Method over Substance
Summary
I have said
it before, and will continue to say that the way we communicate does matter. “I
disagree with you” and “you are wrong”, although both may hold the same core
meaning, will make a noticeable impact on the direction of a conversation. Both
comments have their uses, and those uses are not necessarily the same.
However, it
is common that method, the way in which we communicate, our tone, our
mannerisms, the specific words we choose take priority over what we are trying
to say in the first place. One of the more common ways is seeing two or more
people each trying to remain calm and tactful, yet push the other person to
lose their cool, the one who gets flustered first loses. Another common way is
establishing rules of discourse that inhibit how we communicate. Although to a
degree certain rules are to be expected, we don’t want people throwing punches as
an example, but if we put too many limitations, the place, the tone, the dress,
the procedure, the topics that can and can’t be talked about, those boundaries
often become more defining of a conversation than the issues at hand.
The
Temptation
Having some rules, some structures in place is usually a good
thing. It keeps discussions organized, relevant, and clear. Each time something
happens that distorts or halts the progress of a conversation, we’re tempted to
try to find a solution and place more rules in place to strengthen the method
in which we debate issues.
And a pleasant method is… pleasant. Tactfulness is not always
the best means to speak, but in most cases it comes across better than anger
does, even if that anger is more real and honest.
The temptation is also there for when somebody with an
opposing view stumbles over themselves. It’s easy to point and laugh at
someone’s misstep, their blunder, their embarrassment rather than let them off
the hook and instead engage them on why we disagree with the substance of their
arguments when it’s easier to highlight their ineptitude, or sensitivity, or
something else of that nature.
The Problem
Adding new
rules and structures to the methods in which we discuss and debate issues are
cumulative. It’s easy to add on a rule in a reactive way to stop one incident
from repeating, but it doesn’t consider how a new rule or boundary might work
within existing rules. If too many rules and structures are put into place, the
sum of the parts can create a stifling whole.
Focusing on
the method whether it’s trying to be the most tactful and calm person in the
room, or quickly jumping upon someone else’s mistake, puts the real
conversation on the sideline. Perhaps a politician’s blunder may have cost them
support for a piece of legislation on the short term, but the legislation itself
will be much more likely to endure unless it can be challenged directly. That’s
not to mention that emphasizing someone’s error is not going to create goodwill
in the long term.
Solutions
Keep what’s
important at the forefront both internally and externally. If the discussion is
immigration, continue to hammer that point away. “We’re here to discuss
immigration, not [insert some method of communication that’s brought up]”.
Legitimize people. “Everyone in this discussion belongs here, regardless of
where we came from, regardless of our opinions or how we express them” can help
everyone accept and engage in the issue over the method, to forgive minor
mistakes.
When someone
makes a faux pas, don’t focus on that over why we disagree with them in the
first place. “Yes, this person said something silly, but what’s really
important here is…”
Leveraging Power
Summary
This is a tricky one as politics is essentially leveraging
power. We elect candidates who in turn propose and pass legislation that in
turn goes to administrators and front line workers to make reality. When there
is a contentious issue, not everyone is going to be made happy, and we use politics
to try to make our beliefs the ones that are represented.
Leveraging power in this case though pertains to two or more
people engaging in discourse. For this particular blog post, I’m not interested
in covering politics as a whole, but more on leveraging power when the goal is
just to talk, just to share and exchange ideas to build a greater understanding.
Power comes in many forms. It can be formal such as an
employer over employees. It can be informal such as the person everyone knows
is more knowledgeable or more eloquent a speaker. It can be about relationships
such as who is related to whom, who is a closer friend to whom. Most of us face
situations where we have power over someone else, and when others have power
over us. The same goes for political discussions. There will be times when we
have the means to control the conversation, to leverage our position in a
discussion, and when that can be used against us.
The Temptation
Often times our power is earned, or at least perceived to be
earned. A manager did need to be hired or promoted to have their position.
Someone may have studied more to become knowledgeable. Our sources of power can
also be our sources of support. Friends, family, love ones, we can and should
turn to them (more on this in Part Three). It’s very easy to cross the line of
when someone is simply supporting us to where someone we care about is leveraging
us to “win” a debate.
Power is difficult to let go of once we have it. I won’t go
as far to say it’s an addiction, but giving up control over a situation isn’t
an action that normally comes naturally. If there are ten people who believe in
A, and one person who believes in B, the majority’s first instinct isn’t likely
going to be to reduce their numbers. If someone has just taken a course in a
specific policy subject, it’s easier to show off that knowledge than to share
it.
The
Problem
Outsmarting
someone, outnumbering them, getting our buddy to have our back may overpower
whoever we’re debating with at that moment, but when we go your separate ways
it won’t stick. Similar to favoring method over substance, we’ve only proven that
we can have an advantage over them, not that what we have to say is any more
sound or moral.
At worst, it
can create resentment. If someone feels as though they’ve “lost”, it may just
trigger the backfire effect and cause them to avoid us more than engage with us
again.
Solutions
We need to
have confidence in ourselves, and our own ability to communicate without
needing a title, numbers, or more preparation in order to talk about politics
and other divisive social issues. Have the mindset that we could say the same
thing whether the power of any given situation favors us or not.
Assuming our
goal is to build bridges, we can do our part to make a welcoming environment.
Part of that welcoming is being mindful of what advantages we have that are
unrelated to the topic itself, and avoid using them. On the flip side, be
mindful of what things others can leverage and point it out as unrelated should
we need to.
Shutting Down
Summary
Shutting
down is essentially giving up on a conversation. It’s no longer listening, no
longer interacting. “I’m not going to do this anymore.” “Whatever. I don’t even
care.” It’s stopping before ever getting far enough to build a sense of
understanding.
This is not
to be mistaken with leaving a conversation that’s going nowhere. We’re no
obliged to see a conversation to its end if there is no end. Shutting down is
stopping before giving it our best, to buckling when it starts to get stressful
or confusing. A common example is if someone is called a racist, rather than
try to find out what they did or said that caused offense and reflect upon it,
to instead get upset and give up trying to hold any meaningful conversation any
more.
The
Temptation
Discussing
politics and contentious matters is hard, it’s stressful, it’s tiresome. It’s a
lot easier to talk to people we already agree with rather than spend thirty
minutes trying to win small victories over someone we’ll never truly agree
with.
And it
hurts. I hear words like “snowflakes” and “fragility” thrown around, and I say “yes”.
We are emotional, we are senstivie, we do have things we care about. If we’re
getting into a heated discussion, it means we care, it means are likely to be
hurt by positions and comments that go against our values, or dreams.
It’s easier
to walk away.
The
Problem
Shutting
down turns things into a one-sided debate, and fast. If we shut down, we can no
longer learn, no longer share or teach. It is surrendering to our differences,
the things that separate us over that which we have in common.
Democracies
are reliant upon the will of the people, and though I wouldn’t go as far to say
that we’re only as a strong as our weakest link, we do need enough people with
the fortitude to keep society strong. We need enough of us able and willing to
endure putting up with one another to prevent society from splintering too
much.
Solutions
If someone is
starting to shut down, ease off. Legitimize their feelings, don’t condemn them
or look down on them for metaphorically falling apart. If the conversation
needs to end then and there, give an option for continue the conversation at a
later time. We can allow others their moments of weakness just as we’d hope for
in return.
As for our
own stamina, practice makes perfect. If we can check news sites we don’t care
for, read articles that contradict what we believe, we can become a bit more
accustomed to it, be more resilient when it’s important. Heck, we may learn
something too.
Tribalism
Summary
Tribalism is
a loyalty to one’s group, however we define what our group is. Nationality,
faith, race, gender, political party, community, family are but a few ways we
can categorize ourselves. “This is how I was raised”, “this is what I grew up
believing” are a couple ways this can show. I belong to X group, which is
defined by Y belief, therefore I must believe in it as well.
Tribalism
requires that there also be an “other”. If we belong to this group, there must
a that group. If we are in defense of our values, there must be an aggressor we
must defend those values against. If we are up, there must be a down. If we are
right, there must be a left. Light and dark. Good and evil. True and false.
The
Temptation
It’s
natural, and likely unavoidable, to try to belong somewhere. We’re not at a
point of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and such a future is likely far,
far away.
Even if we
want to avoid tribalism, not to heavily favor the “same” over “otherness”, it’s
hard when society lumps us into groups. Just because we want to be inclusive
does not mean each of us will in turn be included.
Things like
family, religion, nationality are important to us, and more often than not do
good for us. They can give us purpose, direction, we have to learn from someone
and somewhere, and it makes sense to find those we trust and value.
The
Problem
Tribalism
may be an inevitable facet of human life in today’s world, but it serves as a
barrier when trying to reach across to another “tribe”. We cannot truly engage
with someone else if we have on (or both) feet still planted in our traditions.
If both parties remained rooted, then it doesn’t matter whether what separates
us are a few feet or a few miles as neither side will budge.
Although
caring about one’s family or social group is perfectly fine, if it is done at the
expense of all other families, all other groups, then we won’t have the
capacity to engage each other. We need enough space in our hearts, in our minds
for those who aren’t familiar in order to care and share political and social
discourse with them.
Solutions
When
confronting tribalism, try to expand that tribe. Turn a country into a continent,
turn a generation into a century, a gender into a species. We can redefine
tribes to encompass everyone involved in a conversation. Failing that,
recognize the gap. “I know we come from different backgrounds and experiences,
so some disagreements are likely”. We can set the stage that those in a debate
are not necessarily with their peers, not with those we normally speak with and
be prepared for it.
And of
course, it’s important for us to recognize our own “tribes”. Which ones do we
cling to less and more? Which ones do we rush to less and more? It may not
change how we feel, but being aware of it can keep it from becoming an issue
should it come up.
***
ACTION!
The “ACTION!”
for Part One was for us to recognize which of these problematics ways to
discuss politics we ourselves commit. This time look to others. The Press,
politicians, our family and friends, consider how things might be different if
they took a different, less toxic approach.
***
What’s Next?
Part Three
will cover the last five ways we make politics more toxic. Unlike the first
eight, which most of the time I would say are done with good intentions, the
same can’t be said for what I’ll be listing in Part Three. It will be covering
the more malicious, more harmful, uglier tactics we engage with in politics.
Once more I will cover the summary, temptation, problem, and solutions.
