Think of the person, group, or organization that just drives you nuts. Think of that guy who always parks too close to you. Think of that relative who always pushes her political views a little too aggressively. Think of the friend who gets unfriendly when your religion comes up.

Get ready, because you're about to learn how to engage in peaceful dialogue with them.

Right now, you’re probably asking yourself why you need to know this in the first place. After all, we can just avoid the people we don’t like, right?

But is that what you really want? Does a life spent avoiding conflict by nervously peeking around every corner sound relaxing? Wouldn’t it be more pleasant to directly deal with contentious subjects, get them out of the way, and move on with your life? Isn’t harmony better than discord?

Even more importantly, if you feel strongly about a subject, wouldn’t it be great to actually make a difference? To—gasp—actually change someone’s mind, and make an ally out of an enemy?

The possibility of peace is why each of us needs to learn to be civil, to dismantle ideas rather than people.

You’re probably now wondering what difference you could possibly make. Remember—individuals build families, families build communities, and communities build nations, so the path to civility truly does start with you. It starts with each of us.

So let’s take a look at how you can take your first few steps along the path to civil discourse.

Learn to listen.

Listening is always the first step on the road to civility.

If you’re like most, you may not realize how bad a listening you may be—it’s likely that you spend much of your conversation time plotting what you’ll say next and reinforcing your own arguments rather than truly taking in what the other person is saying.

This is a problem. When we don’t listen, we don’t take in information—we don’t understand who we are speaking to, and what they are speaking about, which leads to miscommunication and anger.

When we fail to understand those we engage with, we fail to be civil.

To listen effectively, take the time to reflect on what the other speaker says. Don’t use the time during their turn at speaking to contemplate your response. Focus on their words, their body language, their meaning. Allow time for the speaker to pause and think during conversation—don’t be quick to interject at the first opening.

When your turn comes, be sure to paraphrase what the other speaker says, saying it back to him or her to verify that you truly understand the argument.

Ask questions. Probe. Find out exactly what the other speaker is saying. This not only nets you more information, but also makes the other speaker feel valued and listened to.

"Ask questions. Probe. Find out exactly what the other speaker is saying."
Above all, remember this: good listening should be able to change your mind. If you approach a conversation or debate with the viewpoint that only you are right, everyone loses. The best listener is the one who listens for the truth.

Avoid logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are commonly made errors in reasoning that crop up during arguments and debates—both in-person and, more frequently, online. They are also the root of confusion and misinformation, both of which perpetuate arguments and delay the resolution of conflicts. Keeping an eye out for fallacies in your own arguments, and in the arguments of others can keep a debate civil and productive.

While there are many logical fallacies, there are two that cause the most contention in our daily conversations with our fellows.

The most destructive is the ad hominem attack, in which you refute your opponent’s argument with a personal attack.

For example, if Edward makes an excellent case for the election of a conservative president, and you refute his argument by calling attention to the fact that Edward had a child out of wedlock, and thus cannot be trusted, you’ve just engaged in an ad hominem attack.

In essence, you’ve tried to undermine Edward’s credibility without actually engaging with the subject at hand. This not only leaves the debate unresolved, but leaves Edward angry and hurt—this is uncivil.

The second most common logical fallacy is the straw man argument, in which you oversimplify or change your opponent’s argument, and then attack this version—the straw man—that you’ve created.

For example, imagine our poor Edward makes an effective case against government-sponsored welfare benefits. Imagine, then, that you argue that people who don’t support welfare simply hate the poor and underprivileged.

Again, this leads only to hurt feelings and an unresolved conflict. Think about your arguments as you engage with those you don’t agree with, and do your best to make your assertions from a place of evidence.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus