Transparency Item: The Perspectives section of the Graphic includes an advice column based on new topics and different writers’ thoughts. This is the opinion and perspective of the writer.
I am not a confrontational person in any shape or form. I hate arguments and tend to avoid them as much as possible, especially political ones.
However, I believe someone does not have to be an expert on American politics to know that partisanship in the country is a polarized mess.
People see it on the news and social media every day — harsh generalizations, inexplicable shouting, flagrant claims about the opposing political party — and it is not a pretty sight.
Consequently, I never tried to engage very much with politics — at least, not until I had to take the political science GE I had been pushing off.
Within the first couple weeks of class, Political Science Professor Brian Newman assigned an excerpt of “Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement” written by Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse.
Admittedly, the reading forced me to reconsider the value of an argument.
Like many others, I generally believed the point of arguing was to defend my beliefs and persuade the opponent.
However, an argument should instead be defined as “the attempt to examine beliefs with others by means of our reasons and evidence,” wrote Aikin and Talisse.
It is easy to think our beliefs are the “right” ones, especially with the way social media algorithms function. What someone prefers to see will appear more frequently on their feed.
“Clicks and engagement are, after all, what ultimately translate into revenue and success for these entities [companies],” according to NOVA, an American primetime science series broadcasted by PBS.
While personalized feeds can certainly make our internet experience more interesting, the danger of polarization can be a serious consequence as well.
“Recent research shows that when algorithms selectively amplify more extreme political views, people begin to think that their political in-group and out-group are more sharply divided than they really are,” according to Scientific American.
How then, despite the flurry of filtered information and reinforced beliefs, should people engage with others of differing viewpoints?
A productive argument can occur if both parties are open-minded to the possibility of revising one’s beliefs, wrote Aikin and Talisse.
If people desire to grasp an accurate, genuine picture of the world, people cannot stubbornly cling to worldviews solely because they grew up with them or because their parents believe them.
Each individual is simply one life within millions of different people, cultures and traditions. How can people be so solidly sure what they believe is the most accurate version of the truth?
What Does Civil Argument Look Like?
Civility refers to sincerity rather than politeness, according to Aikin and Talisse. Being civil ultimately involves genuinely attempting to correctly understand the other person’s views.
This means listening directly to the other party and presenting reasons that are relevant to them, wrote Aikin and Talisse. For instance, using the Bible as evidence for one’s stance on abortion is ineffective for an atheist.
Being civil is also refraining from showing disrespect, such as speaking over an opponent, ignoring good points made by the other party and other blatant forms of hostility.
Daryl Davis, an American R&B musician and activist, is a prime example of how powerful civil argument can be.
Davis has spent more than 30 years befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan, according to NPR. About 200 Klansmen have left the organization since then.
Davis gained their respect by studying the information and belief system about the Ku Klux Klan, he said. The show of respect opened a path for more conversations down the road.
”That began to chip away at their ideology because when two enemies are talking, they’re not fighting,” Davis said.
Now I am not saying becoming friends is a requirement for civil argument, but rather that Davis’ approach toward those who held completely different beliefs from him is one to admire and put into practice.
“How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?” Davis said.
I believe this quote applies to both parties in disagreement, not just those whom people view as their opponents. How often do opposing parties seriously sit down to have an open, civil conversation with each other?
Through civil argument, we come to better understand those we disagree with and “inoculate ourselves from the thought that their failure to see the truth entails that they are stupid, benighted, dim, irrational or worse,” wrote Aikin and Talisse.
Do not shy away from people with different views just for the sake of comfort. Perhaps in venturing toward the daunting conversations, the insight one gains will outweigh the pain of lowering one’s pride to truly listen.
_________________
Follow the Graphic on X: @PeppGraphic
Contact Faith Oh via email: faith.oh@pepperdine.edu or by Instagram: @oh_faiffful
