Increasingly, I feel as if the prevailing cultural norm is “winning at any cost.” This is evidenced by, among other things, the verbal sparring among politicans and by media pundits that accompanies every emerging issue or situation. Whatever happened to civilized dialogue—to polite debate during which we focus our comments on substantive issues rather than attacking the character of the (perceived) opposition? Too often today, when we disagree, we hurl invective—including sexist remarks—designed to shatter the credibility of our opponents rather than engaging them in thoughtful discourse.
The most recent example includes calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist on the basis of a comment that she made when discussing discrimination (which was, of course, presented out of context). Whether you agree with her statement or not, we all need to object to this latest example of vitriolic name calling. Words matter, and statements designed simply to incite—rather than educate—the public are dangerous. Calling a woman a racist on the basis of one comment does not further the discussion; it simply serves to inflame those engaged in it. This isn’t a partisan issue, with voices on both the left and the right using inflammatory language during public debates.
I therefore decided to revisit the idea of a proper debate, skimming through a few websites with information on debate strategies. The prevailing guidance included the following: avoid exaggeration, refrain from telling the other person that she or he is wrong, watch the tone of your voice, and admit when you are sharing an opinion rather than a fact. Further, the basis for a debate is described as using logic and evidence to build a case (an apparently lost art). Moreover, to constructively debate, you must listen, assess, and then respond politely and effectively to your opponent’s remarks. These are not bad principles to consider applying to our daily discourse.
I am left thinking that the best advice I’ve heard came from Steven Covey, the management guru, who said “Seek first to understand.” In other words, even when we disagree with someone, we should pause, ask questions, and really listen to their answers—not simply react. By trying to understand how others feel and think, we might just learn something that hadn’t occurred to us. Using that information, we can begin to create real conversations where the goal is to generate a positive exchange of ideas for each participant’s delight or enlightenment (is there really any other reason to talk?). In situations in which we are considering how to deal with critical issues, this type of conversation can yield mutually agreed-upon strategies for positively resolving our challenges. When I have applied Covey’s principle (and trust me, it takes work in a culture that rewards you for winning), the outcomes are always better.
Maybe it is time that we demand that our elected leaders and the media choose more dignified and helpful ways to engage the American public in assessing important national decisions. Call or write your elected officials and national/local media executives and tell them that on important matters, you want:
- An objective presentation of the facts (in context)
- Any relevant historical information
- Their analysis, guidance, or wisdom, with the caveat that it represents their opinion
- Truly fair and balanced coverage during public forums and on television and radio news shows, in which both sides of an issue are explored by advocates with similar qualifications, skills, and experience
- An immediate reduction in the use of language intended to generate controversy (read: language intended to raise money/generate high ratings)
Let’s face it: we shouldn’t be surprised that we are still dealing with sexist remarks in our personal lives when much of what we hear on the news or from our elected leaders is far worse. So reach out today and encourage your elected officials and the media professionals you regularly watch to kick their hysterical rhetoric to the curb.
Cynthia
