The discussion of widespread division in our nation is hardly a revelation at this point. Liberals look down on conservatives as backwards and unintelligent curmudgeons, while conservatives view liberals as reckless libertines gallivanting toward destruction.
But the chasm of disagreement doesn’t just cut between liberals and conservatives; increasingly, even people of the same political party, same background, or same faith are experiencing internal disagreement and division. Common ground among Americans seems to shrink daily, and it can be hard to find a firm footing.
What are we to do when even good people disagree? Who will man the defenses of civilization when there are murmurings and disputes in the ranks? When brother turns on brother, where do we look for support and encouragement?
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must make efforts to ford these rivers of division as best we can because cultural restoration depends on the restoration of unity and common values.
Here are a few suggestions for how we might handle disagreements with those who would otherwise be our allies.
Practice humility
The first step, of course, requires that we acknowledge that our position can be wrong, at the very least regarding some of its details. Recognize the complexity of truth. Very often, people on different sides of an issue both have valid points.
Truth isn’t relative, of course, but it’s vast and mysterious and can be looked at from different angles. While both sides cannot be equally correct, it’s often true that one’s “opponent” is right on certain points. This should be acknowledged as much as possible. Affirm what is correct, then engage with what isn’t.
If I cannot have the humility to acknowledge my own fallibility – and the possibility that I could learn something from the person with whom I disagree – I cannot hope to have a productive conversation. I also have little chance of persuading anyone because arrogance is always the enemy of genuine conversation.
So often, people on all sides of issues make sweeping statements that fail to account for the nuances of reality. We must be willing to make distinctions that are sometimes as fine as the edge of a sheet of paper. Often, the difference between truth and error is separated by just such a miniscule margin.
Practice charity
We must give the benefit of the doubt, especially when dealing with folks with good intentions. We shouldn’t assume that the other side is malicious, stupid, or evil. We ought to acknowledge the good intentions present in the other person’s heart, even if we disagree with the way that they are acting on those intentions.
Most of us can likely identify with at least some aspect of the motives that drive members of the other political party to think and act as they do, even if we detest the way those motives get expressed.
For instance, I do not agree with the promotion of so-called “LGBTQ rights,” but I do recognize that many Americans who push for such things do so out of a place of love, wanting what’s best for the LGBTQ community. I cannot agree with them about how that looks practically, but I can agree with them about desiring the best for people who identify with that group. That’s a first step toward constructive debate.
Seek first to understand
Constructive dialogue cannot occur, nor can the wearing down of boundaries, nor persuasion or epiphanies, if everyone’s first reaction to a controversial issue is to reach for their verbal sword. Most of us are more insecure than we let on, reacting defensively when our ideas, values, or identity are challenged. It’s natural. But it can sink the ship of discussion before it leaves the harbor.
I have tried (with dubious success) to train myself to check this initial impulse when a tense subject arises in conversation, reminding myself that someone else’s opinion doesn’t threaten me. If we both want the truth, there’s nothing to fear from an alternative perspective. If the other person’s opinion is true, then I should be ready to adopt it. If it’s false, then it has no power over me.
The defensive reaction betrays selfishness. We want so badly to be understood and respected that we forget to understand and respect others first.
I find that if I try first to listen – truly listen, with the aim of understanding, not passing judgment – much more productive avenues open. My conversation partner senses the authentic desire to understand and responds in kind.
This has nothing to do with a relativistic attitude that accepts everyone’s position as equally valid and true. But understanding the other position thoroughly – even if it’s thoroughly wrong – is the first step toward fruitful debate.
Let respect be a pathway to persuasion
We tend to conflate respecting a person with respecting their ideas. But they aren’t the same thing. I can respect someone as a good, intelligent, and well-meaning individual without agreeing to or respecting every idea they have. But when disagreements arise, I must demonstrate my respect for the person even if I think his idea is silly.
Again, defensiveness is the real enemy, and anyone who feels disrespected will immediately become defensive. This ends real conversation. Words might continue to fly, but true communication has been cut off.
Moreover, when people feel respected, they’re more willing to listen to the other side, the side that has done them the courtesy of showing respect. However good your arguments might be, few people will be persuaded if those arguments are presented with mockery and disrespect.
Learn to let go … but keep the door open
Sometimes, despite our best efforts, two positions really are irreconcilable. That can be a painful reality, especially when it occurs between close family members or friends.
For myself, the first step toward healing is to acknowledge the pain. From that acknowledgement, I try to move toward acceptance of the reality as it is, with all its imperfections.
Sometimes there’s nothing to do except let go. We cannot control others’ minds and hearts. We can make an effort, but then we must let the matter rest.
One reflection that can help achieve this attitude of acceptance is that the truth doesn’t need me. It will stand on its own. Even if I cannot bring others around to see the truth that I see, the truth will remain the same, a tower of ivory, shining in the twilight of the world for those who are looking for it. It may be that the person with whom I disagree just hasn’t looked in the right direction yet. Someday, God willing, they will. Truth wins in the end.
Letting go doesn’t mean ceasing to care about the other person or the truth. But it does mean surrendering control of a situation beyond us, without closing the door to future conversations if the other person ever seems interested.
Even when words and arguments fail, love does not.
Before becoming a writer, Walker Larson taught literature and history at a private academy. His writing has appeared in over a dozen outlets, including The Hemingway Review, The Epoch Times, and his Substack, The Hazelnut. He is also the author of two novels, Hologram and Song of Spheres.
This culture article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News. To comment on this article, please email [email protected]. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News.
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
