We Have to Talk to Each Other

When I moved to the United States of America in 2010, I repeatedly got the advice not to talk to people about religion or politics. When I asked why, I was told that these subjects were too divisive and that if I wanted to make friends I would be wise to steer clear of these topics.

However, while studying for my Civics Test in 2013 (a vital part of the naturalization process to become a US citizen) I noticed that new citizens were encouraged to take part in the molding of society by voting, joining a political party, starting or joining a grassroots civic movement, discussing policies, and so on.

There is a stark difference between these two messages. The social message says, “don’t engage” while the civic message says, “be active.”

Beyond Talking Points

In those rare cases when I have dared to enter the realm of politics and religion in social circumstances, I have mostly been met with either apathy or generic talking points (and, to my delight, the occasional real discussion).

My contention is that in order for a democracy to work then we the people must have lively discussions and debates about the issues of our times in our effort to self-govern. The silent majority must cease to be silent and engage in civil discussions and debates.

Now, I am not talking about the kind of “debates” that we see televised during election season. Those “debates” are often nothing more than an exchange of watered down talking points; i.e. an exchange of monologues where no one ever changes their mind about anything.

Real debates take time. Both parties must come to the table with an open mind, be willing to make their case, and, if proven to be wrong, be willing to concede to the better argument, or, at the very least, partially agree. And debates are best done face-to-face.

Asking people to dialogue in this way is a tall order and not likely to change overnight, if it changes at all, but it must at least be worth a try.

Laziness and Delegation

At the root of this problem, I have found two major problems­ – laziness and delegation.

Thinking about issues is a difficult first step. Coming to our own conclusions is even harder. It’s much easier to blindly agree with or rail against a point of view than it is to think independently. Those who blindly agree or disagree have delegated their thinking. Someone else has thought about it for them and packaged the outcome in a one-liner or simple concept.

Thinking is hard, but only by grappling with issues in the open will a democratic civilization, based on the free and open exchange of ideas, stand the test of time. Otherwise only a precious few will set the agenda, both in the political and religious (or non-religious) realms, and we the people will be left with a precious few options, essentially choosing between policies, life philosophies, and theologies that have already been spelled out for us.

Self-Reliance

Self-reliance goes hand in hand with self-governing and civic engagement. One must first learn to think on one’s own two feet to be able to engage in a substantial debate. To quote one of Americas finest philosophers:

Man is timid and apologetic. He is no longer upright. He dares not say “I think”, “I am” but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose. These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are…

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote this passage as a part of his essay on self-reliance. While people still quote saints, sages, and scripture, this lack of self-reliance is also true of scientific materialism, which has become a religion to some, as quite a few of the “followers” cannot utter the phrase “I think” without quoting a previous study.

Grappling with Ideas

Thinking is hard and it takes time. There isn’t a YouTube video or bite-size blog that can convey the entirety of complex ideas. Einstein famously said that he gained traction where others failed because of his ability to grapple with ideas for extended periods of time.

Grappling with ideas such as the meaning of life, God and the Universe, societal structure (politics), sexuality, feminism, fairness, and justice, takes time, and, on average, there isn’t a debate going on in the typical household in America about these issues.

If social gatherings are not a combination of fun and the exchange of ideas, then when are we the people to find the time to measure our own thoughts against the thoughts of others? How are our thoughts on these topics going to mature if we only get to talk about them briefly during our college years? How is democracy to survive if we the people don’t think and dialogue?

Social Structures and Influences

While insisting on self-reliance is a worthy goal, it must be acknowledged that without societal structures—both internal and external—and communal ideas there would be precious little thinking and self-reliance to begin with. It’s a chicken and the egg dilemma. Without language, the ability to communicate thoughts and preserve dogma in “holy” scripture and documents such as the Constitution, to name a few, certain thought patterns, often referred to as memes, would not survive, and therefore, we would not be able to contemplate these ideas or memes in solitude.

Therefore, we must always try to uncover as many of our influences as possible and try to be clear about our motives before starting a debate or dialogue, even if the dialogue is only within our own mind.

A self-reliant dialogue is not devoid of other people’s philosophies. However, in order for it to be self-reliant sentences need to start with “I think” more often than they start with references to other sources. It is imperative to weigh as many sides of the debate as possible, but at some point, one must express oneself with self-reliance.

Having said that, most (if not all) of us have been subconsciously indoctrinated in one way or another without being aware of it. That is why we need dialogues, so that people can hold a mirror to our ideas, reflect them back to us and allow us to explore them from different perspectives.

Definitions Precede Dialogues

I have found that it is vital to begin every dialogue with clear definitions of what is being talked about. Without definitions, people will talk at each other, not to each other. We live in a world that overuses common concepts to a point where they lose their meaning.

Examples abound. I have started discussions about ideas such as stress, self-confidence, forgiveness, spirituality, and more, without clear definitions and gotten nowhere. When, on the other hand, I have begun by getting everyone to agree on a definition, it completely changed the dialogue. By defining the topic first, we can presume that we are talking about the same thing or at the least something similar.

The Challenge

It is a paradoxical task to write a column in monologue form that touts the benefits of engaging in a dialogue. I am painfully aware of this. My goal is simply to encourage the practice.

So, here is the challenge. Can we get people talking, maybe even get them to question where they got there fully formed ideas from, and ask that they form their own thoughts about subjects, and do it in a civil manner?

It’s a lofty goal, I know, but goals should be difficult, otherwise, they are nothing but achievable tasks.

Gudjon Bergmann
Interfaith Minister, Author, and Speaker
Founder of Harmony Interfaith Initiative

p.s. I prefer dialogue in-person to online dialogue. Personally, I attend monthly interfaith dialogue meetings for that purpose and engage directly with a number of my friends, who don’t all share my views. That being said, I will engage with you if you write in the comment section in earnest, although sometimes it may take me a while to respond because I need time to think and form my ideas. I prefer that approach to responding instinctively.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Picture: CC0 License