We have reached a point in our society’s history when a
lot of very serious discussions need to be had about how we are doing things
and whether or not existing patterns are working well enough to be
continued. In order to have those
discussions, however, we are collectively in need of setting different
parameters for communication than the ones used in recent years because, simply
put, the discussion has become a lost art.
In today’s world, it is difficult for a discussion not to
instead become an argument and, in many cases, an assumption is made that
arguing and discussing are the same thing.
So, let us begin by reaffirming the difference. A discussion is defined as the action or
process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or
to exchange ideas; an argument, conversely, is defined as a reason or set of
reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right
or wrong. The difference, then, is that
while an argument leads frequently to one side feeling as though it has won a
debate, a discussion is designed to facilitate a middle ground.
Synonyms for both terms further emphasize the disparity –
argument/disagreement/dispute/fight vs. discussion/conversation/negotiation/dialogue. This line of distinction is important
because, when a topic is up for debate, if one side argues while the other
attempts to discuss, the end result is often anger and frustration instead of
progress toward resolution. Given that
all of the serious discussions that we need to have as a society are about
polarizing issues, the lack of clarity on discussing vs. arguing has become a
significant weakness to our society’s ability to implement changes to things
that are not working. From our highest
political positions to social media platforms, the bottom line is that an
argument implies straightaway that someone has to lose or to be wrong when, in
fact, the really important issues weighing on our society demand give and take
that should transcend such petty squabbles; and, sadly, there has been way too
much arguing for far too long.
Having a discussion requires both sides to distance
themselves from all or nothing thinking.
Even when the rules of communicative engagement are well-defined, if one
side comes into a discussion already convinced that there is only one right
answer to any given question, then no discussion will ever really be had and
progress will be arduously slow. We see
this quite often, for instance, with the vaccine debate in the United
States. It is challenging to say the
least to create any sort of environment in which vaccine discussion can take
place without it quickly devolving into a heated argument because both sides
think they already know the right answer.
Unfortunately, the pro-vaccine side especially is notorious for adopting
an accusatory tone with anyone who tries to present information that may
conflict with their previously-established opinion; how is one to ever offer
insight on the matter if the dominant, opposing stance is so strongly rooted in
“vaccines are safe and necessary and anyone who does not vaccinate is a danger
to us all”?
The greatest danger of black and white thinking is that
it makes everything polarizing.
Obamacare is either good or its bad; the proliferation of mass shootings
is either a gun control problem or a mental health issue; vaccines are safe and
necessary or unsafe and unnecessary; and the list goes on and on. In each instance, there is plenty of room for
discussion so long as there is a realization on both poles that such issues are
not black and white at all.
A discussion requires a suppression of the urge to get
defensive; the moment that righteousness takes a foothold, the readiness to
listen immediately decreases and constructive communication becomes less and
less likely. Be attentive, be
open-minded, be honest about the potential limitations of your own opinion, be
eager in your desire to find common ground, be cognizant of when a discussion
should end or be paused, be thoughtful of other points of view (ask yourself
questions to further entertain opposing ideas), and be willing to agree to
disagree.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “In matters of principle,
stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current.” With society’s modern complexities, it would
be fair to state that deciphering which matters are of taste and which are of
principle is no longer so easy. Life is
fluid and its challenges on a grander, societal scale have and will continue to
shift over time. To stand hard and rigid
like a rock lays the groundwork for a fixed and finite mindset that is an enemy
of collective and personal development. Perhaps,
then, while respectfully acknowledging the virtues in Jefferson’s quote, it
would be better in 2017 to, “In matters of principle, stand like a tree” – to
stand tall and firm, but to remain capable of growth and to allow yourself to
sway in the face of necessary change. If
we can all agree to that, then we can start having necessary discussions.
