If you talked with friends or family about politics over Thanksgiving, you probably didn't change each other's minds. But don't get discouraged, and consider talking to them again as the holiday season continues.
As a scholar of political dialogue, for the past decade I have been studying conversations between people who disagree about politics. What I find is that people rarely change their minds about political issues as a direct result of these discussions. But they often feel much better about people who disagree with them.
It matters how those conversations go. Confrontations and arguments are not as productive as sincere inquiry and curiosity.
When people feel that others are genuinely curious about what they think, and calmly ask them respectful questions, they tend to let down their defenses. Instead of arguing in response to an aggressive question, they try to reflect their perceived honesty.
In addition to asking why someone votes the way they do, you might ask what they fear, what they hope for, what they believe creates a good society, and, most importantly, about the personal experiences that gave rise to those fears, hopes, and beliefs.
This curiosity-based approach has important effects on both the listener and the speaker. I have found that a listener may understand how a speaker can make a choice that the listener considers bad but still think of the speaker as a respectable person.
The speaker becomes more relatable, and his or her well-intentioned—or even morally sound—intentions are often revealed. The listener can begin to see how that person's vote might have meaning, under different circumstances or different moral convictions.
The speaker is also expected to have a positive experience.
When I followed college students years after they participated in a dialogue session modeling curious listening, what they best remembered was their conversation partner. Students remembered that a peer they expected would pick on them instead asked honest and respectful questions and listened intently to the answers. They remembered feeling good in the person's presence and liking it.
Benefits for democracy
This type of exchange between Americans of different political stripes can provide many important benefits for democracy.
First, these conversations can help ward off the worst dangers of hatred and fear. I expect that gaining some understanding of others' reasons for voting, as well as insight into their own morality, might reduce people's support for conspiracy theories about election results based on the assumption that no one could actually support the opposing candidate.
This understanding can also reduce support for policies that dehumanize and deny the rights of the other side and politicians who incite violence. In short, I believe that these conversations can reduce the feeling that the other party is so evil or stupid that it must be stopped at all costs.
Second, these conversations can help promote the best that democracy has to offer. In an ideal democracy, people not only fight for their freedoms, but also seek to understand the interests of their fellow citizens. People cannot create a community that supports the flourishing of all without knowing what other people's lives are like and without understanding the experiences, interests, and convictions that drive them.
Finally, in the rare cases that people change their minds about politics, I've found that it's not because they adopt a different point of view. Instead, when someone is asked honest, reflective questions, they sometimes begin by asking themselves. And sometimes, over the years, they find their way to different answers.
For example, one college student told me in a follow-up interview years after she attended a panel that she was asked, “If you said you believed this, why did you vote that way?”
“It wasn't an offensive question,” she recalled. “They really wanted to know.”
As a result, she said, “I've been asking myself that question ever since.”
Dialogue alone is not enough to build a sound democracy. Citizens' actions, not words, protect democratic institutions and our and others' rights.
But open and curious conversations among people who disagree sustain ideas and practices that remind us that we are all human together, sharing a world — and, in the United States, sharing a nation worth protecting.
This holiday season, let us all commit to continuing to treat people with whom we deeply disagree, with respect and dignity.
Rachel Wahl is an Associate Professor in the Social Enterprise Program, Department of Educational Leadership, Institutions, and Policy in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Virginia. She also serves as the Faculty Chair for Education and Democracy at the Uva Karsh Democracy Institute.
A version of this article appeared on The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to sharing the opinions of academic researchers.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and opinion pieces. See our guidelines.
Get opinion content delivered to your inbox.
