A new phrase has entered the public conversation of this country: “Alternative Facts.” On an interview with Meet the Press, Kellyanne Conway used this phrase during a debate over Trump’s inauguration crowd size to emphasize facts about the struggles of the working class. The last blog article argued that a public conversation is needed between religious and secular society, and the controversy over “Alternative Facts” is further evidence. Rather than one side or the other being wrong, this phrase demonstrates the presence of two drastically different epistemologies. Different world views are interpreting which facts are most relevant to their understanding of the contemporary world.
For the US democracy to effectively work, it is necessary for US citizens to engage in a dialogue about these conflicting world views. Unfortunately, many of our public institutions are incapable of such a conversation because of the corrosive influence of money. The beliefs of elected politicians are heavily influenced by who donates the most to their campaigns. Most of the media is owned by a small group of billionaires and is driven by economic incentives such as ratings. Consequently, this dialogue between differing perspectives—a critical aspect of a healthy democracy—is not currently functioning, and it is necessary to explore non-traditional mediums that can take on significant new roles in civil society.
One essential aspect of dialogue is mutual respect for the basic dignity of the people involved. Language that dehumanizes people legitimizes the use of violence against them. For example, as the campaign manager for Trump, Kellyanne Conway has been a frequent target of disdain. This mother of four has now received multiple death threats, and packages of white powder substance have been sent to her home. And examples exist on both sides of the aisle. Instead of dehumanizing the other side, dialogue needs to focus on listening to them in order to understand. The focus cannot be on simply trying to change how the other thinks.
A key question seems to be: How do you create a dialogue where people don’t feel judged and don’t feel like they have to compromise essential parts of themselves?
One simple way of creating civil dialogue is to restate what the other person said and ask if that is correct. What are other ways of doing so?
One essential aspect of dialogue is mutual respect for the basic dignity of the people involved. Language that dehumanizes people legitimizes the use of violence against them. For example, as the campaign manager for Trump, Kellyanne Conway has been a frequent target of disdain. This mother of four has now received multiple death threats, and packages of white powder substance have been sent to her home. And examples exist on both sides of the aisle. Instead of dehumanizing the other side, dialogue needs to focus on listening to them in order to understand. The focus cannot be on simply trying to change how the other thinks.
A key question seems to be: How do you create a dialogue where people don’t feel judged and don’t feel like they have to compromise essential parts of themselves?
One simple way of creating civil dialogue is to restate what the other person said and ask if that is correct. What are other ways of doing so?
RSS Feed
