February 6, 2010

• Wayback Post: Tolerant Conversations

  

  What is a tolerant conversation, and how do we keep it that way?"

  I took a few vacation days off from work and I've been "off" the internet as well. It's been almost a week since I've updated, so I decided to feature a "wayback" post from my archives. The following article was written for the Socrates Cafe blogring in response to a topic on May 17, 2006. I include the questions (and my answers) asked in comments from the first time the article was online. As I was reading this entry that I quite forgot about writing, I was thinking about why I didn't touch on tolerant conversation amongst bloggers, but you'll find I answered that question somewhat in a comment. MFN/ppf  

  ---

  "What is a tolerant conversation, and how do we keep it that way?"

  Conversation is key to communication. Without another viewpoint, one's beliefs or ideas do not go challenged, and one cannot really know if these beliefs or ideas are valid. Without conversation, differing parties can preach dogma till the cows come home, but it matters not a whit. You can preach to the choir, and you can talk to the mirror. You might feel real good about yourself, but nothing is ever decided without learning, knowing, and understanding the opposite viewpoint.

  A conversation between two differing ideolological viewpoints should involve equal parts intelligence and learning, cataloging various ideas, stating one's case without histrionics or emotional baggage, and probably most important of all: listening. The principles of debate can very well be adapted to polite and tolerant conversation. Seldom do people stay polite and tolerant when the discussion gets heated, especially if the discussion is about differing viewpoints which will probably never be compromised.

  Ah, there's the rub. My parents used to teach their children never to "discuss politics or religion at the dinner table". The main reason presumably was to stop any wars from being started in the most basic of social situations. When one is taught from birth to embrace a religious or political viewpoint, in which propaganda and dogma are usually substituted for tolerance and intelligent thinking, one is most likely to keep repeating those dogmas until the face gets red, and anger replaces conversation. Is it wrong to discuss politics or religion in polite society? It shouldn't be. In a truly tolerant world, wildly divergent ideologies would be prime topics for any gathering. Sadly, the world in which I live could not be considered tolerant. Even in a great melting pot of cultures like the United States, differing opinions bubble and boil in individual neighborhoods until the intolerance of these differing ideas burst and fuel spats, fights, and wars. The most famous example would be the rift that divided the country over the Southern practice, ingrained for centuries and fueling the trade triangle with Africa and Europe, of workforce slavery during the mid 19th century. Each side of the "conversation" disagreed so strongly that the "house became divided" and civil war broke out, eventually killing more Americans than either World War II or Vietnam.

  "What is a tolerant conversation?"

  A tolerant conversation is almost a misnomer. We can begin to surmise that in order for one to take place, we should agree on a set of rules, as in a debate.
  1. Gather and display only pertinent information. In any discussion, the ideas should be presented intelligently. 2. Present this information in a comprehensible way without undue emotion. We can be passionate about our position, but not to the extent that we let anger override our common sense or ability to maintain our composure. 3. Debate only those points presented in the argument. 4. Listen to the arguments presented by the opposing side. Each participant, and a spirited debate can occur between a group and not just two people, should respect the opinions and ideas of the opposing party. Each person should be allowed to take their turn, and nobody should interrupt any proceedings. One should leave his bullheadedness at the door. The sad thing about human nature is that no matter how many rules are stated at the outset, if the discussion, specifically in the realm of politics or religion, is heated enough, it will probably burn someone so bad he will revert to his nature of intolerance.

  Can we assume that mankind, as a whole, is intolerant? I think so. Throughout history, differing groups have caused grief for entire generations because of their unmovable viewpoints concerning ideological "stands". The Crusades have really never ended, for example. The city of Jerusalem, cradle of three of the world's major religious bodies of thought since the beginnings of civilization, has been fought over and occupied many times. People just won't get along if they think they own the rights to their partifcular ideological viewpoint.

  If in fact, we can engage in somewhat tolerant discussion, how can we keep it that way?

  Sadly, I don't think this is going to happen. I've been "preaching" tolerant behavior for many years. I like to dissect the opposing viewpoint. I even like to take the opposing viewpoint in debate. Like Hamlet, I feel sometimes cursed to be able to see all sides to a question. Most people cannot think this grandly, however. Most people, by training and by their faith or by nature or nurture, seem to stick to their guns, no matter how intelligently the other side is presented. Hopefully, those guns will never be used. But we all know that what begins as a hopefully tolerant conversation might turn into a firestorm of opposition quite quickly. We see this happen in Iraq, in France, in Brazil every day when we pick up the newspaper. (I refuse to  believe that we will see this happen in Southern California as our President send "troops" to guard the borders between the US and Mexico, but that is quite another story.)

  I've always cited the internet as a great tool for increasing the ideas of tolerant conversation among opposing sides of any question. Sadly, there are more dogmatic and propagandizing sites than discussion boards filled with true tolerant conversation.

  We can discuss our differing opinions to a point, but because of our human nature, at some point someone is going to disagree with something we hold so strongly, that our sense of self worth and our basic ideological makeup will seem to be challenged. Will this mean war? Perhaps. If there were more tolerant conversations, than perhaps war would be only thought about as history, and there would be a great age of understanding and respect for each other's right to disagree.

  tychecat asks: "I think intolerance is more likely to be an effect or tool of war rather than a cause"
  Each side has a position. Each side doesn't back down. Each side engages in "diplomacy" that doesn't work, and then war breaks out. Intolerance might be an effect as well, but because two opposing sides do not and never can agree, then intolerance becomes the cause.

  soonaquitter asks: "Is there any such thing as tolerant conversation, with no one in accord?"
  Sadly, I don't think so. I've been upset about the riots in France and Brazil, and other places, where each side is so adamant that they have to win at all costs, that civil unrest is taking place in areas where civilization has been in place for centuries.

  nance1 asks: "Why do we tie our self worth so strongly to our beliefs that we feel threatened when someone holds different beliefs? Why do we think that understanding how someone else thinks and believes means that we have to agree with him/her? And why do others so often interpret attempts at understanding as agreement?"
  1. I don't know. I never allow my personal beliefs, which, by the way, embody the thoght that all belief systems are more similar than different, to get in the way of my understanding of the other points of view that exist in the world. Some people, nay, most people are threatened. 2 & 3. We shouldn't think that understanding how someone else thinks is tantamont to agreeing with them. In France during WWII if one tried to "understand" the German perspective, later on ones' head was shaved and one was accused of collusion with the enemy. As I mention in my article above, it's human nature that precludes the notion of "tolerant conversation".

  thereluctantsinger asks: "How do you perceive that this setting of rules could take place on a daily basis?"
  The "sets of rules' should be common sense.

  Eddiefromhb asks:  "Do you think conversation guidelines apply to blogging, or is it a totally separate creature?"
  Right off the bat I would say that blogging is a 'separate creature'. If you want to compare anything on the internet with conversation, you would have to compare "instant messaging" or "chatting". IM's and chat rooms allow one to have an "internet conversation". Each party can "converse" in real time. A blog comment section is more like a message board. These were the first methods of communication online after email. With blog comments, a "conversation" doesn't occur. I post a comment at my own leisure. You can read it at your leisure. In most instances, I will not see my comment again after I write it. Blog entries can be written daily, so there are other entries on each blog to which I can comment. I already mentioned in my article that in "tolerant conversation" we should have a set of rules. These could, and should, be common sensical rules. The major blockade in any tolerant conversation is emotional response, which tends to make most people bullheaded, and unable to even try to understand the opposite viewpoint. In a moderated internet discussion, I think the "rules" should be written down. I would say that we can all be "little Hitlers" on our own blogs if we want.

  • 1:49 pm
  • 11 Comments