Monday, January 7, 2013

Calm, Objective, Political Discussions Between Dissenting Parties - Can it be done?

The shortest answer is no. A more complete short answer is that it is highly unlikely but possible under unique circumstances. The following reasoning comes from my own experience, observation, and knowledge on the ego and personality from research articles and other texts.

Often times each dissenting party, whether they admit it or not, has the strong desire to change the other person's view, a desperate 'Agghh, don't you see?! Don't you see know that your view is wrong and that mine makes far more sense?!' This is this the frustrated unconscious dialogue that is going on while your conscious is presenting all the reasons why you believe what you do.

After all, isn't that what goes on in these situations? Each person talks about why they believe what they do? Yes, and this is precisely the mistake, unless of course you want an argument and not a discussion. I believe that as people we have little bundles of "selves" such as wife, businesswoman, swimmer, or musician, that we group together and say 'This is me'. Among these selves is a political self concept, so at the end of our list of "selves" we can throw in republican or democrat or populist ect...
Dissenting views are usually perceived as threats to the other party's "political self" which is a part of the person's ego. The political self is usually a very important and sensitive part of the ego and when it is challenged one can go into protection mode. Protection mode means going on the defensive or the offensive, neither of which is desirable for a constructive discussion. Our egos seek suggestions that they are "good" or "correct".  To remove the threat of a dissenting political view, people either say why their views are correct or why the other person's views are incorrect, each of which will create a self perpetuating cycle of egos battling for security in their perceived "goodness" or "rightness". Sometimes people even try to change the other person's views, in order to remove the "threat"completely. Obviously this seldom works.

So what are the unique circumstances under which dissenting parties can have a calm political discussion?

The Unique Circumstances

1. Whatever speech you use, or actions you take, ask yourself first, is this speech or act constructive or destructive? There is an easy way to know if your speech is constructive or destructive. Be honest with yourself. How are you feeling when the inclination to speak or act arises? If you feel angry, frustrated, or are otherwise experiencing negative energy in relation to the other person, it is best not to speak or act. This is important, because we all know that we can feel one way and behave as though we feel another way. Decide if the speech or action is destructive or constructive based on the way you feel, not based on the way you want to portray yourself.


2. Take active interest in learning about the human being before you, about why they believe what they do. All parties must be active listeners – asking questions to understand why the other party thinks the way they do, not to understand them and then give a counter argument, not to understand them and then try to convince them otherwise, just to understand them, that’s it, that’s the end goal.

If all parties above can do the two things listed above everyone should be able to express themselves comfortably, and at the end, everyone will have a better understanding of each other. However I find it doubtful that many people who are both willing and able to do this are going to run into each other.

Note: This is in reference to small or one on one interactions, not large scale interactions such as The People and The State. Frustration with an unfair law or anger at the mistreatment of others can be a catalyst for positive change so long as change seekers do not act in ways the embody the very flaw in the institution they wish to change.


What do you think? Have I been cynical or no? Am I missing something? Feel free to leave your thoughts below.



No comments:

Post a Comment