How The Experiences Of A Former Westboro Baptist Church Member Can Help Us In The Police Brutality Debate
If we want to better understand tense political dialogue, we’d be smart to study those who have been engaging in it all their lives.
The events following the murder of Ahmed Aubery seem to have ignited a powder keg, a long-overdue eruption of racial tensions that have been rising since America’s foundation. Anti-racism protestors once again clash with police and a number of opposing groups, carrying on the legacy of such events in America; L.A in 1992, Ferguson in 2014, Minnesota in 2016. And while the most recent protests are by no means unique in terms of the issue they are addressing — systemic racism and police brutality — they certainly are in terms of their duration and size.
As a result, protestors have managed to capture the world’s attention. They have also sparked intense political debate among the public in a way few other groups have really managed to.
That is, unless you live in Kansas, and your last name is Phelps.
For those unfamiliar, the Westboro Baptist Church is a religious cult made up of around 70 members based right in America’s heartland. Their anti-everything-not-us doctrine and antagonistic — to put it extremely lightly — rhetoric has gained them infamy across the nation. Their notorious practice of picketing dead soldiers’ funerals might help to ring some bells.
The outrageousness of their rhetoric is trumped only by the outrageousness of the calm they show while espousing it. However, this calm has allowed us to gain some insight into the world of high-tension political discourse. Insight delivered to us by ex-member of the WBC, Megan Phelps-Roper.
But what does a former cult member have to do with racial discourse?
As the Westboro Baptist Church engaged in many, many pickets at a range of events, their unapologetically aggressive brand of evangelism put them on the forefront of some extremely tense social discourse. Their aim is to share the word of the Bible, as they understand it, meanwhile never deviating from its teachings. Their close-knit community means members depend entirely on one another for support. This family, therefore, is bound not only by blood, but also by values and beliefs.
A closed community with strong ties to their beliefs and a tendency to be aggressive to outsiders who oppose them. Remind you of anyone? Likely, the ‘opposition’ to whichever side of the police brutality debate you identify with.
So we can ask ourselves, understanding the dynamic of this cult, what does it take to make someone willingly decide to leave? Or, more broadly speaking…
What kind of political trickery does it take to actually make someone change their mind?
The answer (according to Megan): civil discourse.
If it help can make a 26-year-old woman leave her entire family and livelihood behind to enter a world she has been taught since birth is all dammed to hell, it can help make your neighbour understand why defunding the police might not be the end of civilization; it can make your other neighbour realise that perhaps all cops aren’t agents of death.
So, what is there to learn?
Firstly, Megan’s experience shows just how hard ‘changing your mind’ can really be. Ideals and beliefs are not just abstractly understood notions that explain the things around us, but run deep into our psyche. They give us meaning in a personal and often communal sense. They bind us. They unite us. They can help create the communities we are born into and support us through thick and thin; that is, so long as you play the game right. But when you find information that contradicts your world view and challenges these bonds, it can be difficult to play along, but even harder to stop.
For Megan, this involved leaving her entire family behind and walking into a world that has told her she was a hateful bigot all her life. While her’s is an extreme example, a similar dynamic also exists in a small way for many people regarding debates like those raging right now in our streets. It’s not just a matter of changing your mind, but accepting the external consequences of doing so, often coming from friends and family.
Many of the discussions she had online and in-person were what we might consider ‘typical’ of sociopolitical discourse: aggressive and with little progress being made on anyone’s part. As Megan explains it:
[We] leave our bunkers just long enough to lob rhetorical grenades at the other camp. We write either side off as either “out of touch liberal elites” or “racist, misogynistic, bullies.” There is no nuance, no recognition of our flaws. And when empathy finally is introduced into the conversation, it becomes a debate over who deserves more.
Again, sound familiar?
However, this form of political debate had little effect on her beyond what she already knew — that everyone else was wrong and she was right. Instead, change came from those far fewer but much more engaging discussions with those people who replaced their animosity with intrigue, their frustration with understanding. It is in these conversations that Twitter users managed to show Megan the flaws in her own logic, but in order to do so needed to understand it themselves first. They asked questions, did research, and brought thoughtful comments to her that overtime had a tremendous effect. It was in the moments that complete strangers brought insightful questions that Megan had to think the hardest. In these moments, her seeds of doubt began to grow, and a paradigm shift began.
Show someone that the world is not out to get them and they might become more willing to explore it with you.
We often assume that we shouldn’t have to defend our own positions. After all, they are so obviously right and good that their ‘correctness’ is self-evident. It shouldn’t be our job to educate others… Right?
But if it was that simple, then everyone would slowly come to think the same. And if it weren’t for those people who took the steps necessary to thoughtfully challenge Megan’s views, she would never have come to see the world any different. Thankfully, Megan outlined a few practical steps that helped just that happen.
3 things people did that got her attention
1) Don’t assume bad intent:
It can be easy to assume that someone who opposes your beliefs is ultimately just ‘bad’ and should not be engaged with. And it really is just that, easy. Especially in sociopolitical discussions, we often get stuck on our first wave of anger, and the conversation dies because it is far simpler to denounce someone as having bad morals or intentions rather than understanding their perspective. Instead, recognize that everyone has a lifetime of experience that led them up to your discussion. In that experience, there will be a seemingly infinite number of factors that came to shape who they are. Their experiences will likely be different from yours in many ways, to the point that what you simply assume to be ‘right’ just doesn’t make sense to them. Appreciate that, and act accordingly.
2) Ask questions:
Seems simple right? But questions provide a number of benefits during difficult conversations. Megan explains that she often uses careful questions to map the disconnect between her own point of view and other peoples’. In doing so, she can more directly address the issue at hand; you can’t properly debate or converse with someone unless you understand them. But questions also serve a more social purpose too. Questions show that you are listening, and invite your conversational partner to do likewise. Often, when frequent questions are asked, other people in the discussions will begin to mimic your behaviour (this is something I too have found while facilitating sociopolitical discussions).
3) Stay calm:
Far easier said than done, yet remaining calm is possibly one of the most effective tactics in any conversation. As Megan herself says, she often thought “her rightness justified her rudeness.” However, just as with questions, whatever attitude you omit will typically be responded to in kind. It takes practice but it is powerful. As you remain calm your mind will be clearer and the first two steps become far more achievable, and reaping their benefits will become far more likely.
While using these tips is by no means a one-size-fits-all solution to the topic of race relations and police brutality, I think Megan’s experience provides great insight into what it takes to change someone’s mind when they are strongly entrenched in their beliefs. In a world where there are many barriers to doing so, acknowledging you are wrong can be a monumental task. However, for change to occur, it is paramount that people do so.
Getting people to change their minds is also an art, not a science. Therefore, good discussion needs to be practiced frequently and in different settings. Find people who you disagree with. Talk to them. Understand them. Not only will this help them see your own point of view, but it does so in a way that doesn’t ruin your relationship. You can then begin building that backlog of good experiences that will be necessary if true change is going to occur. Next time you are in a heated discussion on (X) topic, think to yourself, am I going to be one of the many people who would have yelled in Megan’s face, or would I like to be one of the few who actually made a change for her?
If you found Megan’s 3 steps of dialogue useful, I would welcome you to check out my own ‘10 Principles for Good Dialogue’ for more actionable tips on how to have better conversations.
