Disagreeing in an Agreeable Way

Differences in opinion or belief need not lead to bitter arguments

Jun 14, 2021

“Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.” – Jalaluddin Rumi

Much is made these days about how divided the nation is: not a day passes without some media coverage of the polarization. Some point to the political division- the Senate is tied 50-50, and the Democrats hold a slim majority in the House. Among friends and family, the question of how do we talk with people with whom we strongly disagree is often raised. If you are a progressive-minded person, how do you speak to a committed Trump supporter in a respectful way? Is there a way to approach people who believe differently than you without calling them “libtards” or “fascists”?

The key to having such discussions lies in the distant past, 2400 years ago, during the life of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. It was he who developed what became known as the Socratic method, an approach to an argument based on a question-and-answer dialogue. To lead a person to examine their beliefs and opinions, ask specific questions. As political scientist Rob Reich put it in a 2003 presentation, “Socratic inquiry deals not with producing a recitation of facts, or a questioning of the logic of various and sundry abstractions which are held up for comparison, but demands rather that the participants account for themselves, their thoughts, actions, and beliefs.”

In practical terms, we can look at both a general approach and at specific questions when having a discussion with someone with whom we disagree.

Respectful Discussion

The methodology of a Socratic approach requires personal discipline in order to avoid a heated argument. There are the physical aspects: maintaining eye contact, not raising your voice. The goal is to avoid putting the person you are questioning on the defensive. You should also be open-minded and understand that you may be the person to change your position as the discussion proceeds. When you ask a question, listen to the answer in its entirety. If the answer is vague or seems unsubstantiated, follow up by requesting more specifics. Always keep in mind that such discussions yield better results if you avoid making it into an interrogation, but instead make it clear by your manner that you want to learn why a person believes as they do.

As for specific questions, you can begin with these basic six types of Socratic questions:

Questions that clarify
Questions that challenge assumptions
Questions that examine reasons and evidence
Questions about perspectives and viewpoints
Questions that explore implications and consequences
Questions about the question

(Source: lifelessons.co )

Dealing With the Name-Caller

When a person disparages you personally - the ad hominem attack- rather than refuting your argument, it indicates that person’s lack of an effective rebuttal or their intellectual laziness. In either case, calling someone a Socialist or a racist does not respond to the substance of a question. The object of this approach is to divert a reasonable discourse to an emotional contest with the object of winning, not learning. It is, in the terms of logic, not even an argument, but a fallacy.

The ad hominem attack can be simply repulsed by asking the attacker to show how their statements about your character are related to the matter being discussed. It is important in such situations not to fall into the emotional trap the attacker believes they have set.

Civility

If the desired goal is to achieve a level of civility and respect in our civic discourse, then the effort must be made to deal with each other on an individual level in a civil and respectful manner. It is not the goal of a political system that we all agree on public policy, for example. Instead, we have in our representative democracy, one governed by laws, the methods to resolve disagreements. It is the resolution that is important, not the disagreement.

An Informal Homily From Personal Experience

On many occasions, I have witnessed people vociferously denouncing those who held different political positions. I like to ask these people if they were married and for how long. A typical answer might be “Sure, for thirty years”. And then I ask them if they and their spouse ever argued, and if they did, have these arguments turned into shouting matches. The answer, as one may suspect, is usually “yes, we have had such fights.”

“And yet,” I point out, “in spite of that disagreement, you’re still together and you’re telling me that you still love each other. Go figure.”

1hundredsixty8

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?