Disciple: The Art of Disagreement
By the Rev. Canon Dr. Cathy Deats
“ Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”
– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table.” This age-old advice makes some sense because of the strong emotions and opinions that ensue. It recognizes the power of disagreement and perhaps our shortcomings in dealing with difference. It’s good advice to heed, as it seems this is a terrible time in history to have political conversations with anyone, stranger or friend. But such discussions are not only possible, they are becoming increasingly necessary in order to halt the fragmentation of our common life and feelings of isolation and alienation from one another.
The need to be able to disagree in conversation is not limited to the political realm. If one spends any time out in the world (or even online), you are going to disagree with someone about something. There is simply no way to avoid it. But rather than becoming sources of contention, anger, separation or worse, disagreements can enrich thought, increase understanding of another and expand one’s view on things, even if your opinion remains unchanged.
IT TAKES (AT LEAST) TWO
The most important prerequisite to conversation for people who disagree is this: that the parties are willing to have a conversation about a topic likely to arouse emotion and require much time and attention. It is possible to talk to other people of goodwill who have other opinions. It is not possible to have this type of conversation with someone who is not interested in listening as well as speaking.
If you were to say to a person, “Listen, I would like to have a conversation with you about (fill in the blank with any number of topics…immigration, politics, racism, global warming); on a scale of one to 10, how interested are you in this?” If the answer is less than eight, that is a clear indication this is not the time to have such a conversation with this person. It is legitimate to say no to a conversation with someone who has no interest in it, even though we might fear saying no is interpreted as refusing to engage in dialogue. It is also appropriate to decline if you observe the person who expressed interest in a conversation demonstrates behavior that says otherwise. You may discover your conversation partner is more interested in an argument, listening just enough to make the next point. Last but not least, it is always appropriate to say no to a conversation simply because you are not yet ready to have it.
If you do agree to engage in a conversation sure to include disagreement, take the pressure off. Challenging and intense conversations do not have to be completed the first time two people sit down together. Instead, you might agree to a series of three to five conversations, no longer than 20 minutes in length, with space between conversations of at least a day for reflection.
Other helpful guidelines include:
- Show respect: Avoid name-calling, labeling and stereotyping.
- Even two people of goodwill may embark on a discussion and find that after a time, one or the other (or both) may become too upset or too angry to continue. Take a break when needed, and pick up the work at another time.
- Treat the conversation as a beginning of understanding, not the solving of a problem or resolving of differences. There is significant
variation in peoples’ ability to integrate new learnings.
Various techniques to enhance communication have been developed over the years. These methods can be useful tools as you begin a challenging communication experience.
ACTIVE LISTENING
Active listening’s beginnings were in the counseling field and later used in conflict resolution. Its hallmark is attentiveness to what a person is saying with the goal of understanding the views and feelings of the other. While it can feel mechanical to speak, have the listener reflect back what was heard, and continue refining the communication, if the goal of understanding is primary, this approach can begin the work of true discernment.
REFLECTIVE LISTENING
This method of listening is a more specialized form of active listening. Reflective listening involves not only reflecting back what you heard the other say, but also attempting to decode emotional messages communicated in an effort to help the person clarify his or her thoughts and feelings. The hallmarks of reflective listening are that the listener does more listening than talking, responds to the personal rather than the abstract and restates what the other says rather than asking questions.
The basis of reflective listening is clarifying what the other person is saying. One questions the other in her own words, “Is this what you are saying?” Until the other person acknowledges you understand, you do not understand.
DIALOGIC LISTENING
This method holds the greatest relevance and promise for conversations between people with differences of opinion. Created by John Stewart and Milt Thomas, it was developed as an alternative to active listening and has sometimes been called relational listening because it stresses the importance of creating relationship while exchanging ideas. Its four characteristics are:
- Conversation is a shared activity. Rather than focusing attention on one or the other (listener or speaker), its attention is focused on what emerges from the conversation.
- There is an open-ended attitude toward conversation that counters the typical goals of “hard” thinking (certainty, closure, control) with creative, metaphoric thinking. This requires trust and humility, and sees each person as a choice-maker.
- The focus of the interaction is on what is happening between the two people rather than what is in the mind of one or the other. Stewart and Thomas say, “…when you are listening dialogically you join with the other person in the process of co-creating meaning between you.”
- Dialogic listening focuses on the present rather than the future or the past. People must be fully present to the process and to each other.
While these techniques are effective, if they feel too clinical, there are others for people looking for a more creative way to begin a conversation with someone whose ideas are diametrically opposed to their own.
One example: In her popular TED-Ed talk, Elizabeth Lesser proposes taking an “Other” to lunch. Invite to share lunch with you one person from a group you have negatively stereotyped (Republican, Democrat, LGBTQ, immigrant, ex-offender, etc.). The goal is to get to know them. Lesser and her lunch partner set up ground rules: Do not persuade, defend or interrupt; be curious, be conversational, be real; listen. Then the conversation was guided by the following questions:
- Share some of your life experiences.
- What issues deeply concern you?
- What have you always wanted to ask someone from the “other side”?
Lesser identifies the biggest obstacle to this type of conversation as the need to be right, and the need to convince the other they are wrong. She closes her presentation with the following quote from Rumi, the great Persian poet:
Out beyond ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing there is a field.
I’ll meet you there.
Disagreements are not easy, but having them in an enriching way is possible. And you might just be surprised at the common ground you’ll find where you least expect it.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read more about these techniques, we suggest the following resources:
Elizabeth Lesser, Take “the Other” to lunch, TED-Ed Lessons Worth Sharing, 9/15/2016
Pete Machalek, How to Talk to Someone You Disagree With, SagePresence.com, February 6, 2017.
John Stewart and Milt Thomas. “Dialogic Listening: Sculpting Mutual Meanings,” in Bridges Not Walls, ed. John Stewart, 6th edition, (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1995), pp. 184-201.
The Rev. Canon Dr. Cathy Deats is a regional canon for the Diocese of North Carolina and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) in North Carolina.
English 
Spanish