Is Dialogue Possible?

"Principles of constructive political dialogue may seem like common sense. But they are not common practice. Dialogue is not a superficial civility that masks our differences. Even brief moments of dialogue can make a difference, changing the tone of subsequent discussion and debate. This post is part two of a series. In my last post, I presented a summary of several essential principles of constructive dialogue and reasoned debate."

"Michael Mascolo analysed a debate between two college professors on the issue of gun control. The debate consisted of ninety-one conversational turns. Ninety turns expressed an "adversarial position." Only one statement included "a mention of an interest, need, or problem" that was the source of the professor's beliefs. This is the most common form of political discussion, and it is exactly the wrong way for us to talk with each other."

Principles of constructive political dialogue may seem like common sense but are rarely practiced. Dialogue should not be a superficial civility that masks differences; it must engage interests and needs. Even brief moments of genuine dialogue can change tone and subsequent debate. Many political conversations are adversarial and fail to mention underlying interests, as one analysis of a gun-control debate showed—ninety of ninety-one turns were adversarial, with only one referencing interests. Some view dialogue as naive, arguing politics is primarily about power and self-interest. Civility can constrain resistance to injustice, yet superficial civility is not the solution.

Read at Psychology Today