What's Wrong with the Way We Talk

[Michael Briand]

Contemporary American Politics and Public Discourse

The United States is a society characterized by great diversity: ethnic, cultural, regional, socioeconomic, educational, religious, generational. Throughout this century, it will grow even more diverse. In his book, A House Divided: Six Belief Systems Struggling for America?’s Soul, Mark Gerzon argues that the nation?’s diversity has given rise to six distinct ?“states of belief?” that serve as the chief source of Americans?’ social identities and of their moral and political outlooks. Effective communication across the boundaries that demarcate these ?“states?” poses a growing challenge.

In recent years people have begun to realize that, if our communities and country are to solve the problems, meet the needs, and deal satisfactorily with the issues that will arise in the decades to come, the traditional adversarialism of the institutional policymaking process must be supplemented by the tempering influence of a more cooperative politics located in the civic spaces from which governmental institutions draw their authority and receive their direction. Fortunately, a remarkable variety of theories, strategies, and tools designed to improve communication and promote cooperation have been developed in both the academic and practice-oriented arenas of fields such as conflict resolution, peace studies, organizational behavior, community development, group dynamics, and citizen politics. These innovations are beginning to make their way into the mainstream of our nation?’s public life: into private sector firms, not-for-profit organizations, schools, institutions of higher education, churches, voluntary and professional associations, labor unions, and even government agencies.

Unfortunately, news media and elected bodies at all levels of political organization (especially state and federal) lag rather farther behind. In order for a highly diverse society to work, it must rest on general agreement about the answers to certain foundational questions (for example, whether citizens have responsibilities as well as rights). No such society can survive, let alone thrive, if intractable dissensus reaches ?“all the way down.?” Yet, as former California Assemblyman Barry Keene observes, our political system ?“was created?…to reflect social consensus after the fact, not to lead by shaping consensus in a dynamic and diversifying society.?” As a consequence, public discourse in our country and communities continues, in the short term, at least, to be conducted in a manner that moves us away from, rather than toward, the fundamental consensus we require.

Current public discourse exhibits a number of undesirable characteristics:

It is not productive. Productive discourse is talk that leads to effective, durable, and widely supported policies by moving citizens toward the ?“resolution?” of issues. (Resolution does not necessarily mean agreement. Rather, resolution should be thought of as the containment and reduction of conflict to a ?“manageable?” level. Resolution is achieved when an issue no longer elicits from people a sustained, high-degree of commitment of substantial resources (time, energy, money) to the cause of neutralizing or overcoming the action (or inaction) of their fellow citizens who do not share their views.) Discourse is not productive because:

It is adversarial. Its purpose is to ?“score points,?” to ?“win.?” Adversarial discourse is, in a sense, war carried on by other means. Such discourse strains and weakens the civic relationships that hold a community or a society together.

It is not inquiring. Participants do not endeavor to explore, discover, analyze, place in context, comprehend. They do not investigate the (historical, cultural, ideological, psychological, religious, sociological, economic) roots and sources of the problem. In short, the aim of contemporary discourse is not to learn?—it is not to construct and accumulate knowledge. To be sure, knowledge is not always achievable, especially when values are involved. But it is the aspiration to knowledge that is important.

It is not rigorous. Participants have not internalized the goals, norms, and methods of critical thinking. They are not held to high standards of definitional clarity and argumentation. One consequence is that they ?“talk past one another,?” proceeding down separate paths that never converge. Another is that they deceive themselves, imagining that their views rest on firmer ground than they have in fact attained. This reinforces their resistance to learning.

It is not candid. Participants are not encouraged and enabled to reveal the actual, often-publicly-inadmissible factors that shape their views. As a consequence, the genuine needs, interests, priorities, and desires that underlie people?’s views are not surfaced and dealt with honestly.

It does not constructively accommodate emotion. People?’s beliefs, attitudes, values, and perceptions are profoundly affected by emotions. Discourse that does not take account of emotions is unlikely to be productive. When rigorous argumentation is supported by the constructive handling of emotion, it is unnecessary to invoke the principles of tolerance and politeness. Tolerance is too weak to sustain discourse in conditions of profound moral and political disagreement. It is as likely to end in withdrawal and isolation as sustained communication. Politeness provides cover for participants who are reluctant to engage each other for fear of causing and experiencing discomfort. To prevent this, they simply avoid talking about much that is important. Excessive politeness is likely to hinder rather than facilitate discussion of difficult issues.

?“Ordinary?” citizens are marginal to the discussion. The views that find expression are not representative of the public as a whole. The participation of most citizens in politics is confined to voting, writing letters to the editor, making contributions to political parties, candidates, or advocacy organizations, and (infrequently) appearing at meetings of local governments, such as school boards and city councils. As a result, their ?“voice?” is absent from the principal forums?—television, op-ed pages, and institutional venues?—where policy issues are raised and debated at length. When the views of citizens who occupy the broad middle of the political spectrum are displaced in favor of experts, spokespersons, and ?“opinion leaders,?” the system is deprived of their pragmatism, which offsets the ideologically- and interest-driven pressures exerted by organized groups and political professionals.

The public as such is absent. What passes for the public today is in fact a mere aggregate of discordant groups and individuals. A genuine public is the diversely-constituted ?“meta-group?” that encompasses all the cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic, and ideological groups in our society. The public is the source of democratic political authority and of the legitimacy of our institutions. Only a genuine public?—citizens whose first allegiance is to widely shared and deeply held values and principles?—can talk together and work together to reconcile the disparate aspirations to which our diversity gives rise, to establish priorities, and to set a course that shapes and authorizes coherent, mutually beneficial public policies and practices.


Dealing with Deep-rooted Conflict

Philosophically as well as practically, conflict over foundational political questions resists resolution. Different worldviews rest on basic assumptions that cannot be shown to be true or false, rational or irrational. Moreover, they are expressed in concepts, styles, and modes of reasoning that often prove difficult to ?“translate?” for people who subscribe to other worldviews. Most important of all, these assumptions frequently implicate people?’s identities, rendering them psychologically resistant to modification.

The only way to ?“turn down the heat?” of deep-rooted conflict sufficiently to make the achievement of a governance consensus possible is to create the conditions for the construction of a public discourse that, while it engages people?’s worldviews, does not directly challenge them, and hence does not threaten their self-conceptions. What is required is dialogue that is about fundamental differences but that operates beneath that level, at the level of universal human needs.

It is at this level that apparent zero-sum differences can be transformed into a non-zero-sum (?“all-win?”) outcome. People?’s needs must be ?“confirmed?” (validated) through a process of ?“mutual comprehension?” (reciprocal understanding and appreciation) if the psychological vise-grip their worldviews exert upon them is to be loosened enough to enable them to respond creatively and cooperatively to the problems and issues they confront.

Few existing political and conflict resolution approaches are able to deal effectively with divisive, intractable conflicts. Those that have shown they can (e.g., ?“Sustained Dialogue?”) owe their success to an emphasis on the psychological needs and interpersonal dynamics of the parties to the conflict.

[Wally Clausen]

I just voted "mostly accurate", while thinking "accurate", because I wasn't sure and didn't have time to check and ponder whether the essay included the notion of individual differences in public engagement "style" or "appetite". There are more than two categories, I'm sure, but I am quite aware of people being different in just how close or personal they want their engagement to be. For some, connecting with others at the level of "getting to know" and "sharing stories" is important -- it's what needs to happen first, before entering into serious conversation. Others have an appetite for open, candid, nonpartisan, mutual, etc., exchanges but not for personal closeness. A participatory, public engagement vehicle designed for one of these groups will not work well with the other.

Thanks for the thoughtful, helpful essay!

Best, Wally
_________________
Wally Clausen
Clausen Associates -- Consultant
Partners of the Americas -- Volunteer
781-894-0793 Phone/Fax

[Michael Briand]

I quite agree, Wally, that differences in people's dialogical "styles" and in their "appetites" for engaging in (different forms of) dialogue present a substantial challenge to achieving a public discourse that is (among other things) inclusive, constructive, and productive. A theory of dialogue that failed to take account of these factors would be woefully incomplete.

What I tried to do in this short piece was characterize the state of public discourse in America at a very general level and then to suggest that one of the most important factors--but by no means the only one--contributing to the state of that discourse is widespread "neediness" (in a Maslovian sense) with respect to people's identities. It is an interesting question whether people's dialogical "styles" and "appetites" amplify the effect of identity needs, or (reversing the arrow of causality) whether identity needs affect "styles" and "appetites," or whether there is any relationship at all between them. My hunch (and it is no more than that) is that identity needs are more "fundamental" (again, in a Maslovian sense), and hence affect people's dialogical "styles" and "appetites" more than the other way around.

Thanks for your observation, Wally.

[Wally Clausen]

Michael -- I seem to be very verbal today. The following comment is not thought through thoroughly, but something about the conversational field of "identity" and "style" that we've been in evokes my sense that true dialogue is pretty rare in most peoples' lives. I believe that engagement in authentic conversations of this type (and perhaps the associated relationships, for those with that style) may challenge and change peoples' "identities" -- helping them see themselves as more "connected" and "relational, perhaps quite quickly/easily. Iterative. Two-way causality. Positive spiral. At least that's one of the main premises behind my own optimism.

Best, Wally
_________________
Wally Clausen
Clausen Associates -- Consultant
Partners of the Americas -- Volunteer
781-894-0793 Phone/Fax

[Michael Briand]

I, too, presume that participation in genuine dialogue can help affirm (validate) and hence secure people in their identities. If so, the challenges are (a) to obtain their participation, and (b) to ensure that the dialogical approach (strategies, methods, etc.) employed is appropriately attuned to the factors (social, cultural, political, ideological, etc.) that work against a secure identity and that therefore need to be countered.

[Wally Clausen]

Actually, while affirming and securing are possible outcomes, I'm intrigued by the possibility that the power and difference of an authentic dialogue experience (probably a quite exemplary instance of such an experience) may "shift" one's identity in a meaningful way; e.g., by triggering a connection/relational element that simply was not present before.
_________________
Wally Clausen
Clausen Associates -- Consultant
Partners of the Americas -- Volunteer
781-894-0793 Phone/Fax

[Michael Briand]

Good point, Wally. Perhaps what I should have said, rather than implying that genuine dialogue will validate and thereby secure people's existing, predominant identities, is that it can help meet their basic identity needs, which in turn may enable them to alter or broaden their existing identities or acquire new ones.

Michael

[Wally Clausen]

Michael -- Thanks. That captures exactly what I was thinking. Wally
_________________
Wally Clausen
Clausen Associates -- Consultant
Partners of the Americas -- Volunteer
781-894-0793 Phone/Fax

[Kevin Gaudette]

Thank you Michael for the article, and for you and Wally for providing a clear example of the benefits of the process of D&D. The ending was a gentle resonation/resolution...
Michael mentioned the USAmerican:
<>
QUESTION: Would folks care to comment upon the unique dynamics in which powerful economic entities have an inherent structural incentive (i.e. ROI) to promote/expand/deepen this "neediness" by crafting carefully-designed media messages? Needy people can seek solace in endless (and non-fulfilling) consumerism. "Let's go shopping!" Which of course is seen as good for the USA's debt-financed GNP, regardless of whether it meets actual needs or satiates media-generated desires. For example, as the use of legal drugs (sleeping pills, sedatives, anti-depressants, cigarettes, alcohol etc.) expands, the ROI of the drug companies/ad agencies etc. expands. As the number of their incarcerated expands (USA is now #1 per capita worldwide), then the ROI profit-making of USA privatized prisons expands. In such cases, good for the companies/shareholders is not a "public good."
QUESTION: I haven't read the book, but one polarization is frequent in Internet discussions--one which the USA Constitution experienced:
*"Life, Liberty and Property
*"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Hannah Arendt's On Revolution:
"This freedom they called later when they had come to taste it, 'public happiness,' and it consisted in the citizen's right of access to the public realm, in his share in public power--to be 'a participator in the government of affairs' in Jefferson's telling phrase--as distinct from the generally recognized rights of subjects to be protected by the government in pursuit of private happiness even against public power, that is, distinct from the rights which only tyrranical power would abolish. The very fact that the word 'happiness' was chosen in laying claim to a share in public power indicates strongly that there existed in the country, prior to the revolution, such as thing as 'public happiness,' and that men knew they could not be altogether 'happy' if their happiness was located and enjoyed only in private life." (p. 123-124)

"What he (Jefferson) perceived to be the mortal danger to the republic was that the Constitution had given all power to the citizens, without giving them the opportunity of being republicans and of acting as citizens. In other words, the danger was that all the power had been given to the people in their private capacity, and that there was no space established for them in their capacity of being citizens." (p. 256)

The movie The Corporation (as well as many Websites) traces the bizarre history of the transformation of "the corporation" with a specific/limited life
span and specific public responsibilities, to its existence as an entity enjoying the rights of a private citizen, and its over riding legal responsibility being "fiduciary responsibility"--that is, expanding ROI. This unsustainable quest for the eternal expansion of ROI can result in well-funded US/international PR/political/military campaigns to expand citizens' perceived needs and promote addictive and insatiable desires.

"And while it is true that freedom can only come to those whose needs have been fulfilled, it is equally true that that it will escape those who are bent upon living for their desires." (p. 136)
_________________
Kevin Gaudette
Sichuan U.
Chengdu, China
www.iltcscu.org

[Kevin Gaudette]

I posted Michael's Aug 4 piece of House Divided/The Way We Talk, on the Forum of public education critic John Taylor Gatto (www.johntaylorgatto.com). The Forum has some fundamentalists who responded strongly to Michael's points. BELOW is a sample. Secession?

Kevin Gaudette
===============================================
Critique of this Orwellian Manifesto
Name: js
Date Posted: Aug 23, 04 - 6:33 AM
Message: 1st paragraph: Generalities must be defined. Who are "communities" and "institutions" that the author refers to? What are these "civic spaces" from which governmental institutions "draw their authority" and "direction", isn't their authority supposed to derive from the consent of the governed? What are these "theories" and "strategies" the author is so enamored of that are supposedly improving communication and cooperation? Is the author referring to the Alinsky methods now so pervasive in nearly all organizations? Why is "cooperation" so vital an issue to the author? And of course the question is begged: Cooperation with WHAT?
2nd paragraph: Aaahhh, here we have it. The Holy Grail of secular humanism: CONSENSUS that will lead us to SOMEONES idea of utopia. And of course to achieve consensus, it must be "shaped". Here it is presupposed that we "require" consensus. More question begging: Who decides what the "consensus" will be, how will it be "shaped" and by whom?
3rd paragraph: The conclusion that current public discourse is not productive because conflict exists ignores the reason FOR public discourse, as well as presupposes conflict is undesirable. Elimination of "conflict" eliminates the need for public discourse. More question begging: Who will decide what conflict to "contain" and manage? The end is stated to be neutralizing the "conflict to save resources. Who will decide what side of the issue is desirable?
4th PARAGRAPH: What are these "civic relationships" that are "strained"? Why should a community that does not share values be forced to accept values they do not agree with? Isn't the anti-adversarial position not ITSELF adversarial and therefore illegitimate by it's own definition? If one side of a conflict is "managed" and "contained" does that not mean the other side has "won"?
5th PARAGRAPH: Who is to say they don't? Obviously, to have a conflict in the first place, one side must have objections about the ideas or behaviors of the other side. This certainly indicates they have thought about the issue. This is pure biased opinion. And we have again another major tenet of secular humanism, the idea of education, as defined by a bureaucrat, as a greater good.
6th PARAGRAPH: Perhaps the author should read his own essay and do some defining, clarifying, and examination of his grounds. Who is he to say that the side of a conflict he disagrees with, and obviously there is one, is "resistant" to "learning? Perhaps they are simply resistant to being "shaped".
7th PARAGRAPH: Instead of determining WHY people may be fearful to elaborate on their reasons (and what right has he to know them anyway, are private thoughts and opinions also undesirable?) the author advocates doing away with discourse. That should eliminate THAT pesky problem.
8th PARAGRAPH: What is "constructive handling" of emotion? Does the author mean to eliminate emotion so as to avoid having to be polite and tolerant? Emotion is sometimes very justifiable, although it is not more valid than rational argumentation and reasoning. It does arise when people see their rights being stripped and so is inevitable in consensus building. Again, the author has decided that discourse must be eliminated because people become "emotional", instead of addressing the "why" of it.
9th PARAGRAPH: Here the author appeals to populism and collective wisdom of the people, while in earlier paragraphs he speaks of the desirability of managing and eliminating argumentation and conflict. Which "organized groups" are going to do his "managing" that he was advocating above? In this paragraph he proclaims them undesirable.
10th PARAGRAPH: So for an position to be valid, one must be a member of a "meta-group"? What is the "public as such"? Who is doing the conflicting, if not members of the public? Are individuals not part of the public? Is the term "discordant" not simply a value judgment on the authors part? Perhaps those holding what the author considers a "discordant" viewpoint do not consider it "discordant" at all. The auther defines the only legitimate public as a "genuine" public of people with first allegiance to shared beliefs and values, this begs the question: WHOSE shared beliefs and values? What happens when there is no course that is mutually benefical to all members of the public?
11th PARAGRAPH: This is a lie. IF different worldviews cannot be shown to be true or false, the AUTHOR HAS NEGATED HIS OWN ARGUMENT, because his worldview cannot be shown to be true either. How inconvenient that a person's worldview might make them resistant to "modification" to a worldview that better suits "consensus".
12th PARAGRAPH: What kind of "dialogue" can be achieved that is about fundamental differences of worldviews that "operates beneath the level" of people understanding their worldviews are being attacked using behaviorist techniques manipulating basic human needs? This is no dialogue, this is pure Delphi.
13th PARAGRAPH: The author here decides that an individuals worldview must be stripped and another put in it's place by psychological manipulation and needs for approval and group membership. Suppose their worldviews do not allow them to "cooperate" with resolving issues as the resolvers choose? And there must be resolvers with their own agenda to decide what is a desirable consensus. If no worldview can be proven true or false, then how do we know the consensus makers are doing right? Who are these confirmers to decide what is a legitimate world-view?
14th: The political process is extremely flawed, and probably doomed. But, even scarier than the political process is the authors determination that politics is divisive, divisiveness is bad, so we must all submit to deconstruction of our worldviews and their reformation through manipulation of our psychological needs by facilitators.
_________________
Kevin Gaudette
Sichuan U.
Chengdu, China
www.iltcscu.org

[Michael Briand]

Thanks, Kevin, for sharing the example of the responses to my piece that your posting generated. The author raises a number of questions and makes a number of comments that deserve clarification and explication. But I can tell from the way s/he interpreted my piece and from the overall tone of his/her reply that engaging him/her would require more time, energy, skill, and patience than I can muster.

No doubt others have encountered, as I have, persons who feel so threatened and injured by one's words that they can't help attacking in response. This happens most frequently at the extremes of opinion (and in non-face-to-face settings, such as online), but in milder form it occurs as well in more "mainstream" discussions. Certainly, there are strategies and techniques that can help engage such folks and begin to turn down the heat of the initial exchange. But this is very, very difficult when one's interlocutor regards the mere offer of dialogue--indeed, often just the gentlest of replies--as evidence of a plot against him/her. Personally, although I find opportunities to engage such persons almost irresistable, I know I have to decline them, because the resources I expend typically leave me worn out while generating little in return.

What do our colleagues think about this?

Michael

[cicero]

[Kevin Gaudette]

Cicero,

"Interesting"? Yes...and...?
With your Classical/History background, further response is merited.
Best wishes...
Arma virumque cano...
Vini vidi vinci...
_________________
Kevin Gaudette
Sichuan U.
Chengdu, China
www.iltcscu.org

[Rex Barger]

One problem may be that we use too many words. Another may be that we forget that (no matter how carefully we choose our words) we have no guarantee that they will be understood as we mean them. Another may be that, because our worldview seems to work for us, we might succumb to the perfectly natural temptation to arrogantly assume that everyone should agree with us.
Talking (D&D) is a great way for us to expand our experiential base. I seek confirmation for all my perceptions & the understandings I draw for my experience. Alone, I have only one viewpoint to rely on. By talking, I can (with effort) get glimpses from many diverse viewpoints, but I must still confirm these glimpses through my own experience. The effort I must expend is to translate the words I hear into some notion of the mental model they are based on. If it seems to conflict with my mental model (& if the speaker seems to have an open mind), I rejoice! Here is another opportunity for me to access a worldview different from my own! Let's talk! Since none of us can be certain that our own is the best, we can at least explore & seek together some sort of cammon ground where we both (all) feel comfortable.
Because I assume that we all share a common reality, I have great hope that as we continue (forever&ever) to refine our own mental models of that reality, we'll all get closer&closer to real reality. But the most important prerequisites for 'success' are all-inclusive caring, humilty & a belief that agreement is possible if we stay open!