We live in polarizing times. In Alberta, surveys show that voters are divided along partisan lines, with camps opposed on matters ranging from climate change to public health, as well as on their view of the province’s place in Confederation.
Some level of disagreement is expected—even necessary—in democracies such as Alberta. Elections must offer voters a set of distinct and viable options to choose from. We encounter problems, however, when these options become too antithetical, and when the opposing parties challenge each other’s very legitimacy instead of their points of view. Polarization left unchecked is a threat to our democratic norms and institutions. It destroys the common ground necessary for productive dialogue and debate.
Polarization has played a significant role in the rise of extremist movements. According to the Organization for the Prevention of Violence, Alberta is home to an increase in violent extremism and hate crimes. These movements feature anti-authority and conspiracy narratives that impact our ability to respond to crises such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. A divided and resentful political culture creates instability and even violence, such as the January 6, 2021, insurrection in Washington, D.C., or the February 2022 blockade at the Coutts border crossing.
Many of us think people never change their views, won’t listen, won’t accept when they’re wrong
What can we do, as responsible Albertans, to address this? According to some, the answer lies in promoting communication across partisan lines: that is, encouraging people to engage in dialogue with those they disagree with politically. However, simply saying “we need to talk to one another” is not enough when the “other” has an entirely different view of how we should be talking. Challenges can arise when one person is competitive, the other collaborative or when one person aims to change the other’s mind, while the other is intent on simply exchanging perspectives or being heard.
The Common Ground team at the University of Alberta has been exploring new ways of practising dialogue more effectively. Original data collected in our 2021 Viewpoint Alberta survey showed that oppositional dialogue is still happening, most often in person: around 90 per cent of Albertans stated that they had engaged in political conversations with people of an opposite viewpoint over the past month. No other means of dialogue came close to this face-to-face contact, with the nearest being over voice call (44 per cent) and social media (42 per cent).
For over two-thirds of Albertans, oppositional dialogue occurs within their place of residence. This suggests that differences of opinion are literally “close to home” for most people. Women are more likely to engage in oppositional dialogue at home than men (a gap of 15 percentage points), while men are more likely to discuss politics with someone on the other side of the political spectrum when they’re at work (again, a 15-point gap compared to women) or in public (10-point gap). Members of Generation X are less likely to engage in oppositional dialogue at home but more likely to do so in the workplace than Millennials or Boomers.
Engaging in oppositional dialogue does not mean Albertans enjoy it. When asked to describe a time that they engaged in oppositional dialogue, fewer than one in five respondents reported having a positive experience. Nearly a third reported feeling uncomfortable or having been engaged in “conflict” as a result.
One Albertan commented: “The worst opposing-views conversation I’ve had recently was with someone who thinks the COVID-19 vaccines are a hoax, and that it’s a campaign to test large-scale population effects… I left feeling stressed and angry because I was called stupid a few too many times, and my experience was invalidated. I think they can believe anything they want, but when I can give evidence behind my statements and [they can’t], and they refuse to even consider my statements, I find I don’t want to interact with them anymore.”
When asked why they thought other people might choose not to engage in oppositional dialogue, half of our survey respondents cite worries over emotional stress, conflict or the potential for physical danger. Our interviews validated these concerns, with several Albertans describing times when they felt a physical or psychological risk associated with engaging with people they don’t agree with politically. Others saw little point in the dialogue in the first place. Nearly a third of Albertans think other people will never change their views, won’t listen, or won’t accept when they are wrong. Though many Albertans find at least some value in engaging with people who have different views, most hold a negative view of oppositional dialogue.
Of course, not every viewpoint is worth engaging through oppositional dialogue. Engaging with racists, homophobes, misogynists and their ilk is beyond the pale for many Albertans. Some fear reprisal or violence for even raising a topic. These sorts of dynamics fall outside the scope of our comments here.
Fortunately, our study revealed one effective tactic for promoting constructive oppositional dialogue: active listening.
The technique involves focusing fully on hearing the other person’s point of view, observing both verbal and non-verbal messages. It means avoiding the tendency to think of your own response to your partner’s comments. Instead, active listening requires reflecting back what you’ve heard and asking questions to better understand the other person’s position. The goal is to come to a better mutual understanding of each other’s viewpoint, rather than winning the argument.
As simple as it sounds, active listening addresses many of the hang-ups Albertans have about engaging with people who hold differing political opinions. Half of our participants reported shying away from oppositional dialogue because their partner would refuse to acknowledge their point of view. Every one of our interviewees noted that feeling heard was a central component to good dialogue, whether that dialogue was viewed as competitive, co-operative or something else in between.
Feeling heard is crucial to feeling valued and respected in political discussions. Without it, many Albertans shut down, disengage or avoid conversations altogether. Others feel the need to go on the offensive in these discussions, becoming more abrasive as the only means of being heard by the other side. In both cases, moderate voices cede the broader discourse to the most extreme among us, further polarizing our politics.
Engaged and active listening isn’t just a principle we should be teaching children. It’s something we need to practise with even greater intention when having challenging political conversations. So, although knowledge of political subjects, analytical thinking and public speaking skills are important to oppositional dialogue, active listening provides each of us the ability to help our conversational partner open up and be more receptive to receiving new or challenging information. Without active listening, our other dialogue skills are of little value.
To change a mind, finding common ground is a crucial first step
For those looking to engage in more-meaningful oppositional dialogue, we offer the following suggestions:
1) Listen to understand, not to undermine. Active listening can entail paraphrasing things your partner has said, using expressions such as “What I am hearing is…” and “Is that right?” Summarize your understanding in a way that reflects their interpretation of things. You are not agreeing by restating. You are showing your partner that you are trying to understand what they said as they said it. Asking open-ended questions can also let your partner know you are not trying to pin them into a specific response. Use non-verbal cues such as eye contact and nodding gently to show you are engaged. Active listening involves using your whole body, resisting the temptation to reach for your phone. Even if the person doesn’t hold eye contact, you’re showing them they have your attention and that the conversation matters.
2) Demonstrate a willingness to change your mind and learn something new. In our survey responses, people were reluctant to talk to those they feel have already dismissed their perspective even before hearing it. Small conciliatory phrases such as “this is what I think right now,” “as far as I know…” or “I could be wrong” can go a long way. It shows your partner that you’re open to hearing new information and gives them room to reciprocate—to admit they might be wrong or admit they haven’t heard a piece of information before. You are modelling the type of behaviour you would like them to practise.
3) Demonstrate empathy. Many survey respondents were concerned about becoming overly emotional or having to talk to someone who is overly emotional. Our study revealed that while some Albertans value logical, fact-based discussion, others were put off by it. Using affective statements can help. This involves using “I…” phrases instead of “you…” phrases, placing your own feelings at the forefront of your comment. For instance, instead of saying, “COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are terrifying and their behaviour is dangerous,” you can say, “I feel frightened when people refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine, as I am concerned about the danger they might pose to those around them.” The statement is not judgmental; it is your emotional response. It shows your conversational partner that you aren’t trying to attack them. When you notice your partner making similar affective statements, acknowledge and validate their feelings, avoiding the tendency to minimize or dismiss their emotions.
4) Affirm your relationship with the person. A third of Albertans report they are more likely to engage in oppositional dialogue with a family member or close friend than they are with a stranger. Nonetheless, it can be hard to have oppositional dialogue with people you are close to. If you feel comfortable doing so, remind the person as the conversation begins that you value your relationship more than the outcome of the discussion. This can help ease tension and promote a more respectful exchange.
5) Find common ground and consider the other side. This is a way of overcoming polarization, but it can be difficult to put into practice. Below are a series of questions that can help open new ways of thinking. These include:
How important is X belief to you?
When did you first come to believe it and what got you there?
Have you ever shifted your beliefs on this topic?
What is the most convincing counterpoint to your view?
These questions can help open up space for doubt, empathy and further exploration of the logical underpinnings of beliefs, with the aim of finding similarities that can be used as a foundation moving forward. If opposing viewpoints have no clear common ground, perhaps the journeys there or underlying motivations do. You may find you share a common objective but disagree on the best means of achieving it. This opens up some common ground on which to build.
6) Understand that people have varying levels of tolerance for dialogue and conflict. According to our research, many Albertans who are reluctant to engage in political discussions are conflict-avoiders. Consider whether the person you are talking to seems comfortable or willing to talk at all, let alone about politics. Studies have shown that a relatively high number of people are interested in hearing opposing views to their own (some two-thirds of Americans, for instance), but that this percentage is dependent on their choosing to seek out that information, not having it pushed on them. To this end, be patient and do not force dialogue where the other person does not seem interested, even if you feel a desire to talk about politics.
These skills are not meant to be used as a cheat sheet to change someone’s mind. Even if your ultimate goal is to encourage the changing of minds—your own or someone else’s—finding common ground is a crucial first step. People who feel dismissed, undervalued or unheard are unlikely to shift their modes of thinking. That’s why dialogue practices like these can mitigate against polarization by giving your partner at least one non-confrontational and even positive encounter with opposing political views.
Thomas Brown is a U of A alumnus and peacebuilding researcher. Jared Wesley is a professor of poli sci at U of A and lead researcher on the Common Ground initiative.
____________________________________________
