What an interesting conversation. I appreciated your perspective around the balance between compassion and assertiveness, and how one does not negate the other. I'm sure you go into more detail elsewhere, but thinking of this specific conversation, I'm curious on your thoughts (and the research) around the idea that "civility" is granted more towards certain people than others (i.e., people who look like you), and that being "civil" is policed differently in different communities. In addition to your curiosity about this person's positions and desire to engage in a more meaningful discussion of their political views, I imagine they felt they could be more open with you (and respect your differences of opinion) because you weren't, say, a woman.
Thanks for an important point Jasmine. Very true that questions of civility and bridging divides are bound up with power differences and inequality. I would certainly have felt less comfortable discussing these points if he was not only arguing against my beliefs, but also doubting the legitimacy of my identity. I also appreciate that "civility" is tied up with "respect" and respect is something connected to power. The opinions of people from less powerful groups are afforded less respect and hence may not be granted civility.
More broadly, I really struggle with the idea of whether a commitment to pluralism requires granting civility to anti-pluralists, like white supremacists. As I mention in the book, my gut reaction is "no," but then there's cases like Daryl Davis, the Black musician who befriended hundreds of KKK members and convinced them to put away their robes. These folks certainly afforded him less respect, and yet through civil (but firm) conversation, he challenged their assumptions and changed their beliefs. There are no easy answers when it comes to morality and power and politics...
I like this question, and will add that, growing up, when someone would say, “can we have a civil discussion about this”, I always inferred that that meant “no arguing”. I like your idea, Kurt, that “civility is not surrender”, and, as you say, I “don’t have to be a doormat”. While I have always been curious and non-judgmental about others’ beliefs, I have often found myself in a position where, if I don’t agree with them, the conversation will get uncomfortable or will end. This idea of asking “more” in the way of clarifying questions will allow me to stick dig deeper and learn more, while not giving up my own beliefs or apologizing for them. Thank you!!
Thanks so much! I'm glad it was useful. It's definitely a tough balance to both humanize someone you disagree with, and also hold fast to your convictions. It's also useful to remember that, at the end of the day, we usually disagree a lot less than we think (at least when it comes to specific policies).
This brought to mind another master class in conversations across a political divide from Hasan Piker talking to an Uber driver. https://youtu.be/Zy1OS2xBW2c.
Whenever I encounter someone who wants to talk politics it’s often driven in part by a desire to connect and affiliate.
When it’s one on one, I can start digging to find those points of connection. There is so much we share just by being human in a complex world.
Once we agree on a few things, we can stand together to look at some problems and solutions. Become the Us so you avoid becoming the Them.
This also gives you a way to reset a tangent that spirals out. You can always bring it back.
Of course there are always people who just want to argue and dominate, I just let those people go, not politely and avoid engaging. Nobody is better off after a screaming match.
Group dynamics still challenge me and I have no idea how to navigate them in a healthy way. Finding points of connection can exclude other parts of the table. The goal of conciliation gets overridden by factionalism. I’m a bit lost here and usually just listen until I hear a falsehood that I can let slide then I turn into that pedantic guy that every hates or at least hates to agree with.
Good read! I'm happy you chose civility with your interaction with a Christian Nationalist!
I'm curious if you could answer this hypothetical question specifically designed for humanists who believe that some form utilitarianism (that maximizes for "well-being") is best for society at large.
Let's assume there's two groups:
1. Group A believes that well-being is best maximized by maximizing the feeling of "happiness"
2. Group B believes that well-being is best maximized by maximizing the feeling of "meaning"
They each have their scientific methods for measuring their respective "utils".
That’s a big question with a long history! I also think it’s complex because hedonic feelings can factor into evaluations of meaning, and meaning can certainly impact hedonics. At the same time, I agree that there is some differences and how you might try to achieve those goals, and I think I might be on the side of meaning, especially because there’s research in positive psychology suggesting that’s striving for happiness can be counterproductive, where striving for meaning seems to yield positive feelings? So my vote would be for meaning, but I I reckon that we still don’t want people to be miserable, so we should strive to end pain but once people are generally content strive for meeting?
Now this might sound confrontational, but I promise my intention is not to be confrontational.
Your response doesn't seem to answer my question of "how would you determine who is right?".
For example, let's just assume that both societies are doing equally well by all external measurements (and there is a categorical difference between "happiness" and "meaning").
BUT, they must all share a confined legal space. A single government, so to speak, and a single metric.
How would you determine who's metric is best to use?
Thanks for sharing an example of what I think is one of the most powerful and profound ways of starting to break down some of the barriers in discourse that we have today: Just being curious (and perhaps being radically curious). If we are able to set our egos aside (as you've done in this example), there's so much humanity and individuality we find on the other side.
that's what I call good worlding
What an interesting conversation. I appreciated your perspective around the balance between compassion and assertiveness, and how one does not negate the other. I'm sure you go into more detail elsewhere, but thinking of this specific conversation, I'm curious on your thoughts (and the research) around the idea that "civility" is granted more towards certain people than others (i.e., people who look like you), and that being "civil" is policed differently in different communities. In addition to your curiosity about this person's positions and desire to engage in a more meaningful discussion of their political views, I imagine they felt they could be more open with you (and respect your differences of opinion) because you weren't, say, a woman.
Thanks for an important point Jasmine. Very true that questions of civility and bridging divides are bound up with power differences and inequality. I would certainly have felt less comfortable discussing these points if he was not only arguing against my beliefs, but also doubting the legitimacy of my identity. I also appreciate that "civility" is tied up with "respect" and respect is something connected to power. The opinions of people from less powerful groups are afforded less respect and hence may not be granted civility.
More broadly, I really struggle with the idea of whether a commitment to pluralism requires granting civility to anti-pluralists, like white supremacists. As I mention in the book, my gut reaction is "no," but then there's cases like Daryl Davis, the Black musician who befriended hundreds of KKK members and convinced them to put away their robes. These folks certainly afforded him less respect, and yet through civil (but firm) conversation, he challenged their assumptions and changed their beliefs. There are no easy answers when it comes to morality and power and politics...
I like this question, and will add that, growing up, when someone would say, “can we have a civil discussion about this”, I always inferred that that meant “no arguing”. I like your idea, Kurt, that “civility is not surrender”, and, as you say, I “don’t have to be a doormat”. While I have always been curious and non-judgmental about others’ beliefs, I have often found myself in a position where, if I don’t agree with them, the conversation will get uncomfortable or will end. This idea of asking “more” in the way of clarifying questions will allow me to stick dig deeper and learn more, while not giving up my own beliefs or apologizing for them. Thank you!!
Thanks so much! I'm glad it was useful. It's definitely a tough balance to both humanize someone you disagree with, and also hold fast to your convictions. It's also useful to remember that, at the end of the day, we usually disagree a lot less than we think (at least when it comes to specific policies).
This brought to mind another master class in conversations across a political divide from Hasan Piker talking to an Uber driver. https://youtu.be/Zy1OS2xBW2c.
Whenever I encounter someone who wants to talk politics it’s often driven in part by a desire to connect and affiliate.
When it’s one on one, I can start digging to find those points of connection. There is so much we share just by being human in a complex world.
Once we agree on a few things, we can stand together to look at some problems and solutions. Become the Us so you avoid becoming the Them.
This also gives you a way to reset a tangent that spirals out. You can always bring it back.
Of course there are always people who just want to argue and dominate, I just let those people go, not politely and avoid engaging. Nobody is better off after a screaming match.
Group dynamics still challenge me and I have no idea how to navigate them in a healthy way. Finding points of connection can exclude other parts of the table. The goal of conciliation gets overridden by factionalism. I’m a bit lost here and usually just listen until I hear a falsehood that I can let slide then I turn into that pedantic guy that every hates or at least hates to agree with.
Good read! I'm happy you chose civility with your interaction with a Christian Nationalist!
I'm curious if you could answer this hypothetical question specifically designed for humanists who believe that some form utilitarianism (that maximizes for "well-being") is best for society at large.
Let's assume there's two groups:
1. Group A believes that well-being is best maximized by maximizing the feeling of "happiness"
2. Group B believes that well-being is best maximized by maximizing the feeling of "meaning"
They each have their scientific methods for measuring their respective "utils".
How would you determine who is right?
That’s a big question with a long history! I also think it’s complex because hedonic feelings can factor into evaluations of meaning, and meaning can certainly impact hedonics. At the same time, I agree that there is some differences and how you might try to achieve those goals, and I think I might be on the side of meaning, especially because there’s research in positive psychology suggesting that’s striving for happiness can be counterproductive, where striving for meaning seems to yield positive feelings? So my vote would be for meaning, but I I reckon that we still don’t want people to be miserable, so we should strive to end pain but once people are generally content strive for meeting?
Thanks for your response!
Now this might sound confrontational, but I promise my intention is not to be confrontational.
Your response doesn't seem to answer my question of "how would you determine who is right?".
For example, let's just assume that both societies are doing equally well by all external measurements (and there is a categorical difference between "happiness" and "meaning").
BUT, they must all share a confined legal space. A single government, so to speak, and a single metric.
How would you determine who's metric is best to use?
Thanks for sharing an example of what I think is one of the most powerful and profound ways of starting to break down some of the barriers in discourse that we have today: Just being curious (and perhaps being radically curious). If we are able to set our egos aside (as you've done in this example), there's so much humanity and individuality we find on the other side.
Great article!