Political Science Educator: volume 27, issue 2
The Teacher-Scholar
Elizabeth Bennion (ebennion@iusb.edu)
I recently received a request from the St. Joe Valley Notre Dame Club to co-present the annual Hesburgh lecture. They asked me to team up with Notre Dame business professor Amanda McKendree to discuss the topic of civil discourse and provide the audience with advice for becoming a better discussion partner. In today’s political context, these lessons seem important to share broadly in the political science class, the general education class, and the wider public. I offer these thoughts to encourage my fellow teacher-scholars to formulate their own and to consider the best ways to encourage civil discourse in their own classrooms, campuses, and communities.
What is Civil Discourse?
In defining civil discourse, it is important to explain what it is, and what it isn’t. Civil discourse requires civil conversation. Whether in the context of a democratic society or a boardroom, civil discourse requires people to listen to each other, discuss, debate, deliberate, and, in many cases, work collaboratively to determine a course of action. Civil discourse is truthful and productive dialogue; it is about talking and listening; and it is each speaker’s shared responsibility to make the conversation productive.[1]
Civil discourse is not a shouting match, an attempt to dominate the discussion, or a series of ad hominem attacks in person or online. It is also not mere politeness, agreeing on everything, or telling people what you think they want to hear to maintain the peace. Civic discourse is about inviting a person, or persons, into a thoughtful dialogue that includes a genuine exchange of ideas. The goal of this dialogue is not agreement, it is a deeper understanding. Such dialogue should not include speaking for others, telling others who they are, or telling others what to think. At its best, civil discourse is a way to gain new understandings, move a conversation forward, and develop new ideas and opportunities for collective action.
Civil discourse can take many forms. It includes discussion in which people examine an issue and learn more about each other’s views. It includes a formal debate in which each side states a specific opening position, supports it, and argues against the opposing view—while focusing on supporting key claims with relevant evidence. When conducted in a civil manner, each of these forms of discourse play an important role in strengthening representative democracy.
Civil discourse can also take the form of deliberation in which participants honestly confront different choices and weigh the benefits and trade-offs of each choice. This includes tackling issues that are not easily resolved, such as climate change and immigration policy. To do this, participants must deal head on with disagreement and competing values, listen carefully to differing perspectives, and think carefully about their own values and what compromises they are willing to accept.[2]
It is important to remember that civil discourse is about inviting people into a conversation. You cannot force a person to engage in civil dialogue. Whether you are acting as a private citizen, employer, political leader, parent, or educator, you must invite others into the conversation while also abiding by mutually agreeable ground rules and comfortable conditions for such conversations to take place.
Why is civil discourse needed?
The need for civil discourse is clear. Political polarization and negative partisanship pit neighbor against neighbor, creating an environment of distrust and fear that cause people to define those who disagree with them as “threats” to their values and to the nation. Since 2021, a plurality of both Democrats and Republicans have identified members of the other party as a threat to their way of life and reported that other Americans are the biggest threat to the nation.[3] During recent campaign rallies, former President Trump used even stronger language when referring to political opponents, promising to “root out communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country” and accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.” Historians warn that such dehumanizing language can lead to and be used to justify political violence.
The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) recently found that 23% of voters, including one-third of Republicans, agreed that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” That poll also found that 38% of Americans, including nearly half of Republicans, agree that the U.S. needs a leader who are “willing to break some rules if that is what it takes to set things right.”[4] When people feel threatened and being “othering” entire groups—whether immigrants or political opponents—it can lead to support for authoritarian regimes that undermine civil right, civil liberties, and democratic institutions.
It is up to ordinary citizens to interrupt this cycle and change our political culture by recognizing that “we are the ones we are waiting for.”[5] Together, we can teach and learn the art of civil discourse that allows people to discuss difficult issues, deliberate a range of policy options, talk respectfully across difference, and forge a new—and better—path forward.
We live in a democratic republic defined by an indirect, or representative, democracy in which the people are ultimately supposed to be sovereign. Whether we’re talking about families, or workplaces; neighborhood or public policy, people should be involved in thoughtful and ethical decision-making. This requires us to think about what matters most to us and what we really value. Our communities and society benefit when citizens and their elected representatives come together and make collective decisions, especially with tough problems. Such collective decision-making requires thoughtful deliberation. Civil discourse and dialogue is needed to make ethical choices about what we should do, which solutions reflect our individual and collective values, what unintended consequences might result from the choices we make, and what trade-offs we are willing to accept knowing that no solution is perfect.
What challenges must be overcome to promote civil discourse?
According to a 2023 Pew Center national survey, most Americans report feeling angry and exhausted when thinking about politics (Pew Research Center 2023). Many also view members of the opposing political party as more immoral, dishonest, and closed-minded than members of their own party (Pew Research Center 2022). Such beliefs make it difficult to hold meaningful conversations about a shared future.
Outside of work, we tend to be surrounded by others who agree with us also makes practicing civil discourse difficult. Increasingly, Americans live with, live near, date, and marry people who think like they do about politics. A study by political scientist Lynn Vavreck found that parents increasingly frown on interpolitical marriages. In 1958, only one-third of Democrats and one-fourth of Republicans cared if their children married a person from a different political party. By 2016, 60% of Democratic parents and 6% precent of Republican parents disapproved of such marriages (Vavreck 2017).
Of course, there is a lack of highly visible role models in a U.S. Congress that is more ideology divided than at any time in the last 50 years (Kight 2022). Combined with the fact that the nation’s top headline-grabbing politicians, Donald Trump has rebranded a lack of civility as a form of honesty. His supporters see as evidence of being candid, real, and fighting for “ordinary” Americans.[6] This can make it seem like civility is part of a bygone era. This means that many Americans recognize that there must be a better way, making room for “ordinary” Americans to lead the way toward a better, more thoughtful, inclusive, and productive, future.
How can we become better conversation partners?
To be good conversation partners, we must listen to understand. We must recognize on our own situatedness and biases, recognize that history and historical context matters, articulate our values, define our competing “goods” and interests, draw upon our communication skills, find common ground (when possible), and amplify the voices of others (when necessary).
- Listen to understand. To engage in productive civil dialogue, it is critical to keep an open mind and to listen to what the other person is telling us. Even if our goal is to convince people to change their minds, talking rather than listening will not be persuasive. Treating others as if they should be ashamed for their views or as if they are stupid or gullible will only cause them to become defensive and push back against you (McRaney 2022). All-too-often, we focus on being understood, rather than trying to understand what the other person is saying. Our focus on getting our point across causes us to listen selectively while thinking about what we are going to say next, the questions we’ll ask, and the points we’ll make. This often includes filtering everything through our own life experiences, thinking about what story we will share or planning what advice we can give. While finding common ground can be important, recentering our own experiences and thereby making the conversation about us, is no more useful than giving unsolicited advice to a person who was seeking empathy and understanding rather than a solution. It is important to listen closely and to reflect what the other person is saying. Rather than assuming that we have nothing to learn or that our own thoughts are the only valid ones, we must be open to learning something new, hearing different perspectives, and recognizing that others have the right to think differently than we do. A helpful technique for people to practice, with their families, neighbors, co-workers, and classmates is to use this formulation:
Step 1: Listen to understand: “What I hear you saying is that you feel _____ about ___________.”
Step 2: Seek to be understood: “I feel _______ about __________.”
- When utilizing this technique, it is important to reflect what our conversation partner actually said, not what we assumed they would say, and it is important to talk for ourselves and not to speak for somebody else or a whole group of people. While listening with an open mind can be difficult, it is important to recognize that we do not have to adopt, or even respect, beliefs that seem immoral or wrong to us, but that we should try to understand why others feel differently and to treat others with the same respect with which we wish to be treated.[7] If a person’s speech crosses the line into racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or other stereotypes, slurs, insults, or threats, it is okay to tell the person that their words are unacceptable, explain why, and ask for more respectful language. If they refuse, it is acceptable to call in the instructor or facilitator, or end the conversation. A civil conversation requires people to accept the invitation to fully consider different views and ideas without disrespecting others who are seeking to listen, understand, and share their ideas. In a classroom situation, instructors should remind people of these ground rules and goals in advance. It is also important to distinguish between empirical claims about the way the world is and normative claims about the way the world ought to be. If someone makes empirical claims, it can be very useful to ask what evidence has informed their opinions. Similarly, we should be ready to provide valid, reliable evidence to support our own empirical claims.
- Acknowledge your own situatedness and biases. To have an honest and productive conversation, we must recognize, and acknowledge, our own situatedness and bias. All humans are prone to cognitive biases. Confirmation bias is among the strongest and most common of these. We are more likely to readily accept claims that conform to our existing beliefs and worldview (Nickerson 1998). It is important or recognize that we are also all prone to fallacious reasoning. Studying common cognitive biases [8] and logical fallacies[9]) is very useful when preparing to engage in productive conversations with people who do not share your pre-existing opinions and beliefs.
- Identify your values and interests. Each participant in the conversation should begin by stating their stake in the issues. Why is the issue important to you? How does it affect your life? How does your position on the issue reflect your values? Recognizing that even people with strong reasoning skills and identical evidence may have different values, views, and experiences than we do is also critical. We should also not assume that a single policy solution will benefit us all equally, or that any policy comes with all pros and no cons. Politics is about who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell 1936—and it is unlikely that our preferred policies will benefit everybody equally. Our own personal history and the history of the groups to which we belong may shape our relationship to politics, public policy, and political actors. We do not all require the same services. We cannot all access the same goods, services, and benefits. Even when we can, this generally was not always the case. And we do not all prioritize or value the same things. When deciding between lower gas taxes or more funding for public transportation, weighing the benefits of tax cuts for senior or new funding for pre-school, or determining the new location for a city dump, homeless shelter, hospital, or museum, our own situation and needs will influence our position. The phenomenon of opposing developments in one’s own neighborhood or vicinity while not necessarily opposing similar developments elsewhere is so common that it resulted in a widely-used acroymn: NIMBY, meaning ‘Not in My Backyard’.[10] Pretending that we are entirely selfless and unaffected by our own positionality or self-interest does not allow for honest conversation. It is important to consider that the trade-offs are not the same for every member of a community. Students should be asked to identify their own interests and to compare and contrast those with others in their group—or in the larger community.
- Draw upon your communication skills and, when possible, find common ground. While it is important to be honest about our own biases and self-interest and to acknowledge differing backgrounds and opinions, it can also be important to find common ground. This need not mean that we all come to the same conclusion about the best policy or course of action. Perhaps we both loved to make chocolate chip cookies with our grandmothers, or both had seven sisters, or were both raised by a single mom. Finding commonalities as humans can be useful in building the type of relationship necessary to talk about more controversial issues. Finding common ground, practicing empathy, and sharing stories, instead of just facts, are all important ways to build rapport and gain a better understanding of where each conversation partner is coming from; it is also makes it more likely that you will be able to find a solution that works for everybody in the group. In classroom situations, any time spent building a sense of community will pay off later when students discuss, debate, and deliberate about controversial issues on which they do not all agree.
- When necessary, amplify others’ voices. Sometimes minority viewpoints are overlooked. Conservatives may be reluctant to speak up in a room that they perceive to be full of liberals, and vice versa. Teachers may call on boys more than girls. Women’s voices may be ignored in the boardroom. There is empirical evidence supporting all of these patterns. To promote productive civil discourse that maximizes our understanding of the effects of—and tradeoffs involved in — various policies options, it is important to actively listen to all voices—encouraging (without forcing) those who seem reluctant to speak and amplifying the voices of those whose productive ideas are ignored and whose voices seem to go unheard.
What opportunities and resources exist to teach and practice civil discourse?
There are many opportunities to practice civil discourse in our homes and neighborhoods, with family and friends, in our places of employment and worship, and within local civic organizations (e.g. League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, VFW Halls, Junior League). However, such experiences can be difficult to cultivate without shared ground rules and trained moderators.
In many ways, the classroom is the ideal place to practice civil discourse. Students can get to know each other before discussing controversial political issues. They can study cognitive biases and logical fallacies to better prepare them to separate unsubstantiated assumptions and claims from sound evidence-based arguments. Conversations can be structured by the instructor using best practices to create useful frameworks for discussion, debate, deliberation, role play, storytelling, and other forms of civil civic discourse. You can read more about how I incorporate these things into my Political Controversies course in the Chronicle of Higher Education.[11]
Civil conversations can take place in person or online. Contrary to popular belief, and conventional wisdom, Dr. Karin Tamerius, a psychiatrist who’s the founder of the website Smart Politics[12]—which teaches people how to communicate more productively and persuasively—considers online platforms one of the most fruitful places for political discourse. The key is to introduce yourself and establish some rapport, while also setting and enforcing boundaries. This can be easier as part of a formal class that uses a monitored Learning Management System (LMS) but can work outside the classroom, too. “We cannot have this conversation if you are going to call me names,” is a perfectly reasonable statement. A reminder is appropriate if boundaries are crossed and muting or blocking people is always an option. While we can invite people into civil discourse, we cannot force them to engage or to follow appropriate rules of engagement.
Fortunately, there are many resources available to college teachers, and community educators, to use when teaching—and promoting—civil civic discourse in our classrooms, online, and in our communities.
- The National Issues Forums[13] Institute provides free issue guides and discussion start videos, as well as moderating tips and training materials on their website. It is easy to host a National Issue Forum in the classroom, on campus (while incorporating several classes and/or the general public), or online. All necessary training materials and issue guides are provided free online.
- Caitlin Quattromani and Lauran Arledge TEDx talk entitled “How Our Friendships Survives Our Political Differences”[14] provides a relevant example of everyday people learning to bridge the partisan divide. Based on their own discovery of their substantial political differences during the 2016 presidential election, the talk offers specific advice for promoting understanding and maintaining friendships despite deep political disagreements. I required students in both in-person and online classes to watch the video and report back on what they learned and what strategies, if any, they’ve tried to maintain bipartisan relationships.
- The free websites is[15] and yourfallacy.is[16] offer free materials to teach students, or yourself, about logical fallacies and individual biases that clog our thinking and prevent us from logical, evidence-based reasoning and discussions. Understanding our own biases and recognizing common logical fallacies is an important first step to creating the self-awareness and critical thinking skills required to engaged in productive conversations about controversial political issues. Students in my political controversies study cognitive biases and logical fallacies for the first half of the semester before we dive into our conversations of controversial political issues.
- The Duke University Polarization Lab[17] offers free online resources to help fight polarization by allowing people to measure the strength of their echo chamber, learn what their tweets say about their political ideology, and follow bots that help find conversation partners with views that differ from their own. This can be very instructive to students as they consider the ways in which their own social media habits are shaping their understanding of—and attitudes toward—people with whom they disagree.
- The Constructive Dialogue Institute[18] offers the “Perspectives” curriculum free online. The six interactive online lessons weave together psychological concepts and practice scenarios. These lessons can be used by groups or individuals. They also offer three peer-to-peer discussion guides and a dashboard to track learners’ progress and quiz scores for instructors who want to assign the lessons as a required part of a graded course. There is some evidence that peer mentors are particularly successful at building on social connections and facilitating active listening and perspective taking techniques among college students. Peer-to-peer interactions can increase students’ comfort with political dialogue, including discussions of controversial issues. This appears to be true for both peer-instructors and student-learners as both benefit from practicing the skills required for civil discourse (Garcia and Ulbig 2023).
- Unify America hosts The Unify Challenge[19] including online college bowls that match people from different ideological backgrounds for one-on-one guided conversations online. The easy-to-use online platform provides everything participants need to engage in a one-hour guided activity appropriate for extra-curricular, co-curricular, and curricular use. Unify America provides multiple dates for easy scheduling, handles all reminders to participants, and even records which students participated and how many questions they answered for instructors who wish to assign the Challenge for credit.
- Resetting the Table[20] supports collaborative deliberation across strong differences. In addition to consultation, coaching, and facilitator training, this organization helps communities host a wide variety of programs including MOTH-style[21] (live, no notes) storytelling events, policy input forums, communication skill-building workshops, facilitated town squares (for “charged” community issues), and multi-vocal (multi-viewpoint) education surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Braver Angels[22] brings Americans together to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic republic. Organizers are eager to partner with educators across the U.S. and are happy to visit classrooms and conducts training workshops, presentations, and forums across the United States co-facilitated by members from different partisan and ideological backgrounds.
Other useful resources, recommend by my conversation partner, business communications professor Amanda McKendree, include The Better Arguments Project[23], The Dialogue Project[24], Civic Health Project[25], Crucial Conversations[26], and the Center for Creative Leadership’s 5 Steps for Tackling Difficult Conversations[27]. Each of these should prove useful in setting up a course, workshop, or public deliberation series designed to promote and facilitate the type of civil discourse our nation so desperately needs.
References
Garcia, Lynne Chandler & Stacy Ulbig. 2023. “Building Political Discourse Skills: Students as Teachers.” Journal of Political Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2023.2267150
Kight, Stef W. 2022. “Polarization in Congress hits half-century peak.” Axios, Mar. 16. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2023 (https://www.axios.com/2022/03/17/polarization-congress-democrats-republicans-house-senate-data).
Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House
McRaney, David. 2022. How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. New York: Penguin.
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/).
Pew Research Center. 2023. “Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics 65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics” Sept. 19. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2023. ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/).
Vavreck, Lynn. 2017. “A Measure of Identity: Are You Wedded to Your Party?” The New York Times. Jan. 31. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2023 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/upshot/are-you-married-to-your-party.html).
Endnotes
[1] See the American University website on civil discourse at https://www.american.edu/spa/civildiscourse/what-is-civil-discourse.cfm for more information.
[2] For more information about how deliberation differs from other forms of civil discourse, explore the training materials available at the National Issues Forum website at https://www.nifi.org.
[3] See YouGov/CBS poll results here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/01/democrats-republicans-elections-democracy/
[4]See American Values Survey overview here: https://www.prri.org/research/threats-to-american-democracy-ahead-of-an-unprecedented-presidential-election/
[5] This famous phrase, coined by poet June Jordan was sung by Sweet Honey in the Rock and as the title of books by famous author Alice Walker (We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: Inner Light in a Time of Darkness, New York: The New Press/W.W.Norton, 2006) and political philosopher Peter Levine (We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: Civic Renewal in America, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
[6] Research demonstrates that Trump supporters often find Donald Trump trustworthy because they prioritize “belief speaking” (telling people what you think and feel) over “fact speaking” (which relies on the quality and veracity of facts provided). This conception of honesty, which values sincerity over accuracy, is strongly linked to negative emotions. Therefore, criticizing members of the other party can make a politician seem more candid, honest, and sincere to supporters. See Steven Lewandowski and Jana Lasser’s 2023 article in The Conversation or read Lasser et. al’s 2023 article in Natural Human Behavior (volume 7, pp. 2140-2151, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01691) for more information.
[7] For more tips visit the Community Dialogue web site at communitydialogue.org.
[9] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
[10] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/not-in-my-back-yard-response
[11] In Najmabad, Shannon. 2017. “How Colleges Can Teach Students to Be Good Citizens.” The Chronicle of Higher Education.” Jan. 13. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2023 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-colleges-can-teach-students-to-be-good-citizens/)
[12] https://www.joinsmart.org/
[14] https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_quattromani_and_lauran_arledge_how_our_friendship_survives_our_opposing_politics?language=en
[16] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
[17] https://www.polarizationlab.com/
[18] https://constructivedialogue.org/
[19] https://www.unifyamerica.org/unify-challenge
[20] https://www.resettingthetable.org/
[21] https://themoth.org/about
[22] https://braverangels.org/
[23] https://betterarguments.org/
[24] https://dialogueproject.fuqua.duke.edu/
[25] https://www.civichealthproject.org/
[26] https://cruciallearning.com/browse-courses/crucial-conversations-for-dialogue/
[27] https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/5-steps-for-tackling-tough-conversations/
Elizabeth A. Bennion is Chancellor’s Professor of Political Science at Indiana University South Bend.
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. All issues of The Political Science Educator can be viewed on APSA Connects Civic Education page.
Editors: Colin Brown (Northeastern University), Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Any questions or corrections to how the newsletter appears on Educate should be addressed to educate@apsanet.org
Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection
