Conviction in Belief, Co-Existence and Communication 

By Willow Taylor Chiang Yang 

The hallmarks of a good politician today are someone who “isn’t afraid to tell it like it is,” “sticks to their values,” or, in more up-to-date vernacular, is “for f*&#ing real.” Flip-flopping is a death sentence. It’s so easy to identify someone’s inconsistencies in an age of infinite data collection and a digital log that begins, frankly, before you’re born, with a Facebook post of a blurry ultrasound. Holding those in power accountable is certainly a noble endeavor, but at what point does authenticity become stubbornness, genuine personality bullheadedness, and conviction merely an unwillingness to evolve? 

We must be allowed—perhaps morally obligated—to adjust our opinions and beliefs as our lived experiences grow and change. If I were in X political party my whole life but began to read and research politics more, began to speak with more experts, and began to listen to personal experiences different from my own, shall I be a pariah for sympathizing with Y political party? (Overhaul of beliefs is not the aim, of course, but adjustments on a policy position or development of sympathy for other values are often vilified, too.) Rapidly evolving societal, political, economic, technological contexts mean we’re exposed, every day, to a wealth, an overabundance, of new information; how can it be just to keep our entire belief system the same if we are challenged on it daily by new facts and new experiences? 

It is not a new or particularly interesting take to state that as the world globalizes and each of us is exposed to new types of people that don’t align with our internal concepts of normal and weird, comfortable and uncomfortable, moral and immoral, we will, inescapably, run into conflict on the largest and smallest scales. What is perhaps more novel is the belief that we must find a way not only to coexist but also to coordinate with one another such that each of us feels, at the very least, unbreeched by one another. The aim is not to proselytize in any political or social direction; the aim is to allow for each individual to believe in what they may wish to believe and live how they wish to live so long as those beliefs and those lives do not result in the infringement of others’ lives. 

This is where I believe the Program for Public Discourse provides the skills necessary for the cultivation of beliefs that could satisfy such a vision. Polarization and animosity—and even its adverse health effects—are shown to improve with the development of “bridging social capital” through meaningful dialogue. The exposure to social groups and those with “othered” characteristics that responsible discourse requires and the skills that the Agora and the PPD promote combine to create a powerful and effective method of adjusting mindset and belief such that they are focused not on demonization of difference but rather simple recognition and acceptance. 

Redefining Civil Discourse and Facilitation to Embrace Diverse Forms of Communication  

By Jaleah Taylor, Agora Fellow 2023-2024 

In the realm of facilitating public dialogue, the traditional playbook often espouses principles such as establishing ground rules, promoting passionate impartiality, and encouraging constructive dissent. These guidelines, drawn from resources like “Facilitating Discussion: An Introduction to Guiding Public Dialogue,” serve as stalwarts for fostering meaningful conversations. Yet, as we navigate an increasingly complex societal landscape, it becomes imperative to expand our conception of civil discourse beyond structured dialogues and into the realm of diverse forms of expression.  

Consider, for instance, the role of protests in shaping public discourse. While protests are often viewed through the lens of disruption, they represent a powerful form of grassroots communication, amplifying voices that may otherwise go unheard. The Black Lives Matter movement, sparked by the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others at the hands of law enforcement, exemplifies this dynamic. Protesters took to the streets, not only to demand justice but also to challenge deeply ingrained systems of inequality and oppression. Despite lacking the formal structure of a facilitated discussion, these protests served as a catalyst for national introspection and dialogue on issues of race, policing, and systemic injustice.  

Moreover, the principle of “passionate impartiality” takes on new dimensions when applied to movements advocating for social change. Consider the role of facilitators in protests against climate change. While these facilitators may not adhere to the traditional notion of detached neutrality, their passionate commitment to environmental justice fuels their engagement with participants. By providing logistical support, mediating conflicts, and amplifying marginalized voices, these facilitators embody an engaged impartiality that aligns with the values of democracy and inclusivity.  

Constructive dissent, another hallmark of civil discourse, finds expression not only in structured discussions but also in the streets. Take, for example, the global Fridays for Future movement initiated by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. What began as a solitary protest outside the Swedish parliament evolved into a worldwide phenomenon, with students and activists mobilizing to demand urgent action on climate change. Despite facing criticism and skepticism from some quarters, these young activists have injected a sense of urgency into the climate discourse, challenging governments and corporations to prioritize environmental sustainability.  

The improvisational principle of “yes—and” also finds resonance in nontraditional forms of dialogue. In the context of protests, participants often employ creative tactics to convey their message and build solidarity. From artistic performances to guerrilla theater, these expressions serve not only to critique existing power structures but also to envision alternative futures. By embracing a mindset of collaboration and innovation, protesters transcend the limitations of traditional discourse, sparking new ideas and inspiring collective action.  

Time constraints, a perennial concern in facilitated discussions, take on new dimensions in the context of protests and social movements. While structured dialogues adhere to predefined schedules, protests unfold organically, often spanning days, weeks, or even months. Maintaining momentum and cohesion amidst uncertainty requires adaptability and resilience, qualities that are equally essential in facilitating public dialogue.  

In conclusion, while structured discussions remain invaluable for certain contexts, we must recognize the richness and diversity of human expression beyond the confines of formal settings. By embracing protests, grassroots movements, and other spontaneous forms of dialogue, we can foster a more inclusive and vibrant public discourse—one that reflects the complexities and nuances of our shared humanity. 

Strategies for Practicing Constructive Disagreement

By Sarah Crow, Agora Fellow 2022-23 

Americans appear to be pulling away from civil discourse and substituting in its place, bad faith, unproductive hostility, and isolation into one’s ideological cocoon. The dangerous pleasure of being “right” causes us to employ discursive methods focused on winning and confirming predispositions, rather than seeking truth and understanding. Furthermore, the hostile terrain of debate in classrooms, campus centers, and social media intimidates many students to prefer silent disengagement over risking their reputation being caught in the crossfire of campus culture wars. The university ought to be the epicenter of civic discourse, where students can try on different viewpoints to see which fits and engage in the competition of ideas to reach a higher understanding of truth.

The Program for Public Discourse seeks to model a better way beyond extremism and intolerance. This past year as an Agora Fellow I had the chance to work with fourteen other students, from all kinks and corners of the political spectrum, to understand how we can improve the way we communicate about politics. Here are a few key practices and approaches I learned:

Separate Ideas From Personal Identity

For people who like politics, it can be easy to define your identity by the ideas you hold. Saying “I am a protectionist” or “I am a pro-lifer” etc. use a few words to describe a complex policy position. It defines the fundamental essence of who you are, based on the policy you think is correct. Wearing political t-shirts, pins, or bumper stickers acts as relics or trophies, signaling to others which tribe you belong. The problem with conflating identity and ideology is that when someone disagrees with your political view, it feels like an attack on your humanity. It treats ideas as immutable features of one’s personality rather than simple positions one arrives at through applying one’s values to their own examination of the evidence. This conflation prohibits civil discourse because people mistake uncomfortable disagreement with unsafe threats to self. Although political philosophy is my passion and a huge part of my identity, I have tried to refrain from defining and labeling myself through relics of political movement, and reframing my thinking from “I am a free-trader” to “I think free trade is often the best policy” so that when someone disagrees, I view it as an invitation to understand their view, rather than a personal attack.

Practice Rigorous Detachment

Changing your mind can feel embarrassing. We are so trained to argue to win and confirm our own positions that sometimes even if we see better arguments for another perspective we feel attached to our predisposition. The Agora Fellowship has taught me, however, that rather than viewing political discussion as a two-sided debate, it is much more productive and constructive to approach these conversations as working with your interlocutor to reach a more holistic and shared understanding of the issue. Letting go of defining ourselves through a strict construction of ideas allows us to detach ourselves from our political “tribe” with the curiosity and epistemic humility to change our minds through rigorous examination and discourse and seeing when we are wrong and coming to a shared understanding with others.

Remember that Positions Stem from Values

Although rigorous detachment is a good practice, by no means will we all suddenly agree if everyone simply debates “nicely” with one another. Policy positions reflect a combination of values and truth claims. Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory explains that to understand political division, we must first understand someone’s moral predispositions. How someone defines fairness, liberty, or care gives foundational clarity to their political views on contentious issues like immigration or gun control. Agreement is not necessarily the goal of civil discourse; sometimes simply developing an understanding of and respect for others’ intuitive ethical codes will bring about a more empathetic, cognizant growth mindset, opening doors to finding common ground and productive exchange.

Listen to Understand, Not Respond

This is the best piece of advice I have received as a facilitator. It seems so simple but when we are constantly focused on constructing what we say next we lose focus on truly understanding what we are hearing. It is easy to assume someone’s position after hearing a few key buzz words or claims. Especially in political conversations, it can be difficult to pause our automatic instinct to judge. Likewise, when we are trapped in the mindset of constant rebuttal, it is easy to miss the nuance of our interlocutor’s argument. Listening to respond teaches us to juxtapose adversarial positions, whereas listening to understand can reveal overlap and novel perspectives.

Practice Epistemic Humility

The insights outlined above have intensified my epistemic humility and inspired me to employ the following discursive strategies: Approach discourse in good faith. Assume positive intent of your interlocutor and ask questions from a place of genuine curiosity. Epistemic humility can be practiced in small ways. For example, phrases like, “I agree” or “I disagree” rather than “I am right” or “You are wrong” have immense de-escalating power. Simple actions such as smiling when advocating for a view, using inclusive rather than combative language, offering evidence, and qualifying beliefs can transform a discussion. Presumably, truth about right and wrong exists in the world. We use discourse to arrive closer to truth, goodness, and beauty. When engaging across disagreement, epistemic humility means acknowledging fallibility of your arguments. Intellectual humility leaves you more open to listening to opposing viewpoints and committing yourself to broad-minded thinking about complex issues. Ultimately, good-faith conversations are more likely to arise when we approach them with less certainty and more curiosity.