alex ongstad headshot
The recent attack on the Capitol is a testament to the growing polarization and dissension among political parties. With political tensions high, people now more than ever feel compelled to express their views publicly. While such bluntness can be seen as useful in many ways, I strongly believe to preserve unity we must learn how to view division as an opportunity to learn from, and influence, the relationships between partisan bodies.
The Campus Conversations Project (CCP) is a great example of how students at NC State are actively seeking ways to bridge the divide between partisan bodies. Derived from the Living Room Conversations Project, this initiative serves as a way to get students comfortable with speaking to one another about sensitive topics.
The CCP mission statement brings light to the stark realities of division in America and how these divisions work their way into our everyday lives. Those who experience dissension in their own home may fear some level of detachment due to the effects of polarization. Not knowing how to carry out a conversation with a political rival, especially one you’re close with, could discourage people from forming deep and meaningful bonds with one another.
I like to view dissent as an opportunity to learn from someone else’s perspective. Discussions with my grandpa in particular have shown me how our experiences can shape our perspective of the world around us. Him and I don’t necessarily agree on everything, but we share a mutual respect for each other’s opinions.
When it comes to family members being outwardly discriminatory or unjust, though, we should always take the opportunity to call them out, no matter how uncomfortable the situation may be. Despite our fear of detachment, we should still hold people accountable for what they say or think, especially if their opinion is alarmingly taboo.
The question, then, is what makes a discussion productive? What are some techniques we can use to better communicate with those around us? To have a reliable answer to either of these questions would mean ignoring the variability between different conversation types. It would be naive of us to assume that one approach will yield the same response in every discussion. Despite their inherent variance, there are still general techniques we can consider when talking about sensitive topics.
For instance, being able to overcome perception bias is an important first step to a healthy discussion. Oftentimes, we fail to differentiate an opinion from an entire political ideology, leading us to assume something about a person that isn’t necessarily true. By asking clarifying questions, we can learn to disassociate people from ideologies and understand them better as individuals.
I think people have a difficult time stepping back and reflecting on their approach to a conversation. With so much happening in the world right now, it’s easy to get caught up in one train of thought, making it difficult to recognize whether or not we’re contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.
Letting your righteousness bleed into conversations can actually discourage change and widen a previously existing division. That’s not to say that being righteous is a bad thing, it’s just a matter of being aware of who you’re speaking to and what techniques are effective in different settings.
This does not mean that we should lay off the heat for the sake of making others more comfortable, but it does mean that we have to be able to find the right times to put on certain attitudes. We have to be conscious of our thought process and aware of our surroundings to enable the grounds for a meaningful conversation and effectively promote change.