Unless you need to get right into a throw-down at the job over political views, you might want to begin by keeping any name-calling to yourself, says one religion expert.
«Thieving socialists,» «modern-day robber barons,» «the war on women,» «destroyers of the U.S. economy» — the heated, provocative political rhetoric accompanying tomorrow’s (Nov. 6) election abounds. No wonder conversations between opponents so devolve into shouting matches quickly, either virtual or real. civil conversations are possible
But, said Michelle Voss Roberts, an assistant professor of theology and culture at Wake Forest University.
Drawing upon rules established as foundations for productive discussions among folks of different religions, within the interfaith movement, Voss Roberts offers five principles for having a productive discussion together with your political opponents, pre- and post-election.
«Whatever the outcome of the election, we do reside in a society where in fact the conversation continues,» she said. «These principles might help us complete the election, plus they are likely to be important for continue together also.» [10 Historically Significant Political Protests]
1. Assume the very best : «Especially in political dialogue, we are able to demonize the other side,» Voss Roberts said. «You intend to be studied seriously as somebody who is earnest and sincere which means you assume your partner can be speaking honestly and sincerely.»
2. Allow others to define themselves : Or, quite simply, don’’ call your opponent names. «In case you are trying to relate with someone on a human level, if you would like to listen to what your Republican or Democrat neighbor really considers healthcare or the economy, name-calling will take off that dialogue.»
3. Compare apples to apples : In the realm of religion, this implies avoiding comparing the best ideals of 1 religion, like the Christian aspiration for peace, with a distorted interpretation of a religion held by a little minority such as for example that behind the terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists on 9/11. In politics, this implies avoiding comparing the best ideals of 1 political spend the the missteps and gaffes of the other, she said. Policies, for example, should be weighed against policies.
4. Create a convenience of self-criticism : In religion and in politics, nobody comes with an untainted history, and participants in a dialogue have to acknowledge this, Voss Roberts said. This plays out in discussions over the economy, where each side points fingers at the other, but neither acknowledges that their own policies might have contributed to, or didn’t address, the nagging problems. «I believe because we should polarize,we aren’t even in a position to have that conversation. Instead, we just fling accusations backwards and forwards,» she said.
5. Be familiar with power : Be familiar with whose voices are heard, and whose aren’t. A victory could make those on that side feel they have a mandate, however, as members of a pluralistic society, Americans have a responsibility to bear in mind marginalized individuals, she said.
To ensure that a discussion to reach your goals, neither participant can seek to convert the other, but to understand the other person and the variations rather. However, this intent puts an open discussion at odds with a significant goal of political rhetoric inside our society: converting others to a specific viewpoint.
However the political realm could study from the religious one. Interfaith discussions opened dialogue after events just like the Holocaust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she said.
«We need to live as citizens together, tomorrow irrespective of who wins the election; that type of relationship-building shall benefit us over time,» Voss Roberts said.
Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We’re also on Facebook & Google+.