In this section, we discuss some productive ways of engaging oneself and others.
Engaging oneself
If you are reading this, you are probably already engaged in some ways or are thinking seriously about it. There have never been more possibilities of doing so – online or in person – we can organise or attend meetings, rallies, and protests; write online blogs or commentaries; sign petitions and make donations, or simply engage in informal conversations with friends, colleagues and family. We can leave this to personal preferences. Very often, though, it is not so much what we do, but how we do it that makes a difference. So, we discuss here emotions, thinking and attitudes to optimise engagement constructively and fruitfully.
Emotions
It would be almost inhumane not to have strong emotions with all that is going on in this last stage of capitalism. The question is what to do with them. We know that suppressing emotions is not good for us, and expressing them is often not good for others and the cause we feel strongly about. Luckily, there is a third way: we can channel the energy of emotions into determination to address the issue that touches us. When emotional energy arises, instead of bottling it up or spending it on online shouting matches, promise yourself that you will engage and do something.
Thinking
In the post-truth world we live in, it may seem that empirical evidence and rational arguments have little currency. And yet, they are irreplaceable because they provide common ground for a dialogue and living together. The only alternative is ‘might is right’. Of course, sharing ‘lived experiences’ can have great value, but they widely differ and therefore cannot be used as a basis for the common ground. Evidence and reasoning have come into disrepute due to their misuse and abuse. Capitalism turned them into a competitive game to win rather than a collaborative way of discovering the truth. This is not to say that they should be abandoned, though – only that the way we apply them needs to evolve (for the principles that can elevate thinking to the next evolutionary step, see Thinking Anew). This is what it involves in practice: rather than cherry-picking evidence, consider all (at the same level of detail) – even that which contradicts your existing view. In discussions, if you present all the evidence in a balanced way, others will be more open to your views. Similarly, play devil’s advocate when reaching conclusions through reasoning. You will prepare better if you do the same before engaging in a debate.
Attitudes
We can learn from the past which attitudes don’t work. For example, when the New Atheist movement mainly focused on attacking religion rather than promoting what is good in atheism, they lost momentum and support. More recently, a postmodernist version of Social Justice Ideology (also referred to as ‘wokeness’) rose to prominence. The vast majority of people were initially sympathetic to their progressive agenda (greater equality, diversity and inclusion). However, attempts at forceful ‘conversions’ into their ideology, imposition, dogmatism, and demanding unreflective acceptance alienated most sympathisers and gave ammunition to those who were not. After initial success, their approach spectacularly backfired and more likely contributed to the resurgence of the far-right in the US and elsewhere. The attitudes below are more likely to bring lasting social change:
- Strive for, rather than fighting against. This is a crucial difference between evolution and revolution (in fact, even between successful and unsuccessful revolutions). Fighting against is often a waste of time and energy and can have unintended consequences, such as alienating the general public.
- Prioritise solutions over problems. Criticising and taking things apart is easy, everybody can do it – which is why everybody is doing it. However, focusing on what is wrong has limited value. A better world is unlikely to rise spontaneously if we take apart the old. We need to experiment, test and debate potential solutions and new ways forward now. This may be harder and riskier (riskier because it opens you to criticism) than being an armchair critic, but it is far more useful.
- Make friends, not enemies: arguments and fights (in person or online) are a waste of time. We can’t (and it wouldn’t be good even if we could) force change, so winning hearts and minds is really what matters. Rather than burning bridges, we must build them. This involves seeking common ground, being inclusive, and supporting each other. This is different from online echo-chambers, whose members also support each other but only to rage against others.
If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com
Engaging others
Listening
It is only fair to listen if we expect to be listened to. No matter how eager we are to share our ideas, it is usually better to start by listening to see where the other person is emotionally and cognitively. Good listening consists of the following:
True listening means not using the time the other is talking to think about what to say next. You may miss not only something important but also the other person, as that’s incredibly easy to notice. If you need to think about what to say, take a short pause before responding. It is far more agreeable.
Deep listening involves understanding – not only the content but also the person (where they are coming from and their experiences). Don’t worry that this may soften your convictions. If what you hear does not make sense to you, it will strengthen them. If it does, your views may evolve, which is a good thing.
Active listening shows engagement. It includes these interventions:
- Paraphrasing and summarising help you check and demonstrate your understanding and can reduce defensiveness. Emotional reframing – summarising what the other person said without emotive words – can help calm down another person without explicitly telling them to calm down, which usually has the opposite effect. For example, a statement such as, ”Those idiots are destroying our country with their socialist ideas”, can be reframed into, “So you think introducing these changes would not be helpful.”
- Clarifying usually involves asking for explanations or examples, but it can go deeper: it can make the implicit explicit by clarifying the information or assumptions on which an assertion is based. For example, assumptions behind statements such as “There is no alternative to capitalism” can be clarified by simply asking, “Why do you think that?” If somebody says, “The state (or the EU or the UN) is taking our freedoms away!” you can say, “Exactly which of your freedoms is eroded by the state (the EU, the UN)?”, to get to the source.
For additional suggestions on listening, see Awareness of others.
Remaining composed
It is hard to accept that people we relate to really think or feel differently from us. We’d rather believe that they just ‘don’t get it’, don’t hear or understand what we are saying. So, we must get our point across more forcefully or more loudly! But this only alienates others and makes them even more entrenched in their existing views. The phenomenon is known as the backfire effect or reactance: forceful attempts to persuade make people feel their agency is threatened. To protect it, they assert their original view more firmly or shut down. Similarly, raising one’s voice doesn’t make an argument stronger (unless addressing a large crowd already leaning in the same direction). Furthermore, forceful arguments do very little to win hearts and minds – even if we win an argument that way, we are likely to lose the person. On the other hand, creating an atmosphere of trust, openness, and safety while confidently but calmly exploring an issue alleviates resistance and the sense of threat, making others more open to alternative views. But what if the other side argues forcefully or lectures? They can’t win if we refuse to play that game. Remaining silent may sometimes be more persuasive than any argument.
Establishing common ground
Persuasion is more likely to work if you first find common ground: look for things you agree on or have in common (e.g. certain values), and share them with the other person. Ask them what they believe, what they hope for and what they fear. You don’t have to agree with everything – you can empathise and acknowledge their hopes and fears without necessarily agreeing with them on the causes and ways forward. For example, someone says, “High unemployment is the fault of letting too many foreigners in”. Rather than engaging in a discussion about immigration, you can say, ”I hear your worry about your job – I have the same fears”. If they say, “This is socialism”, you don’t need to defend socialism or argue that what you are hoping for is not socialism. You can say instead, “You seem to value freedom and everybody getting what they deserve for their honest work. Me too”. Only when you establish some common ground can you think of challenging.
Challenging
Challenging is sometimes necessary, but can be tricky. If you just tell people they are wrong, you lose them. To avoid that, challenge views, not people. Frame the issue in the context of shared values and what you agree on, and affirm anything you have learned from the other person. Rather than challenging conclusions, challenge assumptions or the way conclusions are arrived at (deficiencies in evidence or reasoning). Then let them reach their own conclusions.
Two methods can help with this: the so-called Socratic dialogue, combined (if necessary) with argument by analogy. Socratic dialogue consists of making enquiries to tease out inconsistencies or contradictions. Argument by analogy consists of finding something that the other person agrees with and then highlighting a parallel with what you would like to help them see or recognise. Remember to paraphrase or summarise before questions to avoid the impression of an interrogation. Here is a condensed extract from a real conversation, as an example:
- There is no global warming.
- Why do you think so? (Inviting the other person to talk about how they have come to that conclusion, rather than going for counterarguments).
- Look how cold it is here.
- So, you think that global warming would make the world hotter everywhere. (Teasing out a belief on which their conviction is based).
- Well, I don’t believe what I don’t see.
- So, you trust your senses most (paraphrasing). Hmm. I wonder… Do you sometimes stir the food that you cook?
- Of course, why do you ask?
- Why do you do it?
- What a silly question! (at that point, the person may have already realised the link, but doesn’t want to admit it) –To make it evenly hot, right?
- So, if you didn’t stir it, it wouldn’t be hot everywhere? (Making it explicit)
- What’s your point?
- Well, nobody stirs the climate, so we can’t expect it to heat up evenly.
- Maybe God stirs it? (Laughing)
- Well, God wouldn’t need to if the planet weren’t getting hotter (Laughing together)
To remain emotionally on the same page, it is important not to close in for the kill and leave the conversation open-ended. In the above example, the person got the point that a cold stretch in one part of the world doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t getting hotter, so spelling it out wasn’t necessary and would have been counterproductive. We have to forsake the pleasure of winning an argument to avoid the divisiveness and win over the person, which is far more important. In many cases, after listening carefully to what the others have to say, you may even skip the challenge and offer an alternative viewpoint, with something like “I wonder what you think of…”.
Describing your vision / making a point
If you hear something you disagree with, such as “This leader will restore our glory and greatness”, rather than challenging, you can move it forward by saying something like, “I’m hoping for better than that”, and no more. If they don’t take the bait, don’t push; just leave that door open. If they are curious and ask, “What?”, this is your invitation to explain the better alternative. Try to do so in simple, tentative terms. Don’t use jargon or academic-speak; use language to which people can relate. It is critical, though, to do your homework. Using valid data to support your case helps others come on board. However, some may respond better to stories, metaphors, historical analogies and real examples. Bear in mind, also, that they are more convinced by arguments that address their own, perhaps unspoken, concerns than general ones. If you still get responses such as, “What you’re saying is rubbish! I will tell you why…”, you may revert to listening. It can help you improve your arguments. Furthermore, even if the other one remains closed to your perspective, they will at least think you are a pleasant conversationalist because you listened to them. Later, when they are on their own and no longer need to be defensive, they may start thinking that you might have been making sense. You may never see the fruit of your efforts, but if you plant enough seeds, some of them are bound to sprout.
Recuperating
These conversations can be exhausting and even hurtful, especially with people who matter to you, so give yourself time to recuperate. You may also feel despair if you don’t manage to move others. Good strategies may increase the chances of shifting people’s positions, but cannot guarantee an outcome. The best remedy for failing to get across to others is to discuss your experience with those who are on the same page, so you all can learn from it. In this way, you can make every encounter, even seemingly unsuccessful ones, meaningful.
