My brother is wrong about a lot of things: politics, religion, the proper way to load spoons in the dishwasher. Perhaps not unexpectedly, he thinks I’m wrong about those same things. We have argued so loudly before that people thought we were angry with each other. Not in the least. We just have strong opinions.
Through the years, we have taken on so many topics that my brother, David, has suggested I write a play using all our email exchanges. He was greatly distressed to learn that I’ve deleted many of his instead of archiving them. Oh, the loss of all those carefully chosen words and links to other serious words from better-prepared sources! Oh, the quiver of victory in deletion, says I.
What we have learned to do with our intractable positions is not to distance ourselves. Instead, we have developed a model called “On This We Agree.” In effect, it makes us argue backward to the point that we are comfortable with the other’s position. Nicer people who wouldn’t have begun an argument might call this the point at which we agree to disagree. In fact, it’s actually the point just before that.
Two sources have been helpful. One is Stephen Covey’s talking-stick method of communication. We all know his seven habits; the concept of win-win is so ingrained in our culture few remember its origins. The process is simple. An object (his was a walking stick given to him by Native American leaders) is held by a speaker until he or she feels the point has been understood. The other person must be silent except for clarifying questions until that time. Once the first speaker is satisfied, the object is passed to the next person and the process begins again. That most of us have forgotten how to listen is obvious. Even waiting for the other person to finish can be a challenge.
The second is Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Here Haidt, an evolutionary psychologist, presents the six moral foundations that humans use to approach the world: care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. The book is complicated. This list is not: We weight the values that mean the most to us. A liberal tends to favor care, liberty and fairness above the others; a conservative accesses all six values. An advantage but not the moral victory it seems.
The emphasis we place, then, becomes the issue. David and I both care about hunger, for example. Haidt believes liberals care more about people while conservatives must also consider their other five moral objectives as well. Questions arise regarding the fairness of redistribution of income or the sanctity of independence from government intrusion. Well and good, but we must still address hunger. To do that, we have to find a way to work together.
There’s lots of talk about the loss of civility and the divisiveness that seem to define us. My dream is to set up a website where people can un-argue or de-argue or whatever it needs to be called. People would do the opposite of convincing. Rather, they would put aside the animosity that comes with righteous indignation and replace it with listening. At some point, going backward, they would agree on something.
It could work. The joy of deleting an irritating comment does not compare to the joy of agreeing on the basic nobility of humanity.
MaryAnn Taylor of Duncanville works in social services and is a Community Voices volunteer columnist. Her email address is mataylor7@gmail.com.
