Better Dialogue: De Facto vs. De Jure Objections
It’s still possible to bridge the political gap, but our discourse must improve.
It takes a cursory look at the current political sphere to see that disagreements on the fundamental aspects of society are vast and only seem to be growing further apart. Simultaneously, the ability to meaningfully communicate with our fellow humans has expanded in wondrous ways over the last half-century. The initial hope in the rise of technology was that the ability to share our ideas would, in turn, bring us closer as a species, and harmony we’ve never experienced before would be produced as a byproduct. This hope was unfounded, and the complete opposite occurred. How can this be true? At a time when we should be enjoying balance and symmetry, the reality is dysfunction and decay. Pointing fingers likely won’t resolve any issues; instead, we should consider having better discussions that hopefully begin narrowing the ideological gap that has grown unwieldy.
De Facto vs. De Jure — Alvin Plantinga’s definition
There are two terms that we will focus on in this article. They are related, but it’s essential to form a distinction that could unlock an ability to have better discourse with our ideological opponents. These terms are “De Facto” and “De Jure.” These terms have specific definitions. They are mainly used in the legal arena, for example:
“De Facto” — In fact, or in effect, whether by right or not. (In reality)
“De Jure” — According to rightful entitlement or claim. (In law)
It is worth one’s time to understand the difference between the terms in a classical sense. This article will attempt to look beyond the classical definitions of the terms and use the delineation defined by Alvin Plantinga in “Knowledge And Christina Belief.” There are two types of objections “The De Facto Objector” and “The De Jure Objector.” in this book, Alvin Plantinga uses the term “De Facto” vs. “De Jure” to convey objections to specifically Christian belief. He sets the stage for two positions, “the believer” and “the objector.” He makes the case that a belief can be purely and straightforwardly false, for instance, the idea that Santa Clause is real. Therefore, the De Facto Objector argues the existence of Santa Clause is incorrect, or at least highly improbable.
On the contrary, the De Jure Objector does not claim a belief is false. Although it could be, the De Jure Objector claims that the belief has a defect. The idea or belief is unjustified, foolish, immoral, or something else. First, understand if you are the believer or the objector. Suppose you are the objector, understand that De Facto vs. De Jure objection can tremendously impact the conversation and the likelihood of changing minds and influencing people.
Why It Matters?
One thing that all sides of the political spectrum do agree on is that we are too divided in our beliefs. It’s a funny thing to agree on, but if we plan to be the objector of an idea held by our opponent, we must filter it between De Facto and De Jure. Furthermore, we must be honest in our appraisal. Mentally, it is far easier to object to an opponent’s belief with De Facto judgment than to oppose with De Jure objection. De Jure Objection will force us to do some up-front work and point out the defects, thus defending our reasoning for labeling attributes of the belief as defects.
Explanation in the political world
At times, it is appropriate to make De Facto objections. People can and will hold false beliefs, and we should confidently make that objection when necessary. To pick an extreme example, a person might believe that the earth is flat. The objector may consider it appropriate for De Facto objection towards that belief. To use another contrived example, imagine someone believes collectivism is the most applicable principle to build a society. If you are the objector of collectivism, it is healthy to practice De Jure objection to such a claim. If implemented correctly, the objector would have to identify the defects of the claim they are objecting to and resolve their opposition coherently.
Why Should We Implement De Jure Objection?
1. Challenge Our Own Beliefs
Suppose we choose to make De Jure objections when appropriate. In that case, one of two things will occur, we will improve the foundation on which we make our beliefs and objections, meaning we will understand on a deeper level why we believe what we believe, or we will learn something that our minds were previously closed off to understanding. Using a previous example, if you find yourself objecting to the idea of collectivism being the appropriate principle to build the foundation of society, and you wish to implement De Jure objection, you will be forced to understand precisely what it means to support collectivism because you will have to itemize and formalize your protesting statements. Distilling your objections will either strengthen your previously held beliefs, or your mind may change to some capacity, and you learn ways your objections may not be fully considered.
2. Accomplishes Good Faith & Empathy
Is it naive hopefulness to expect our dissenting ideological conversations to have an undertone of respect and understanding? Yes, it probably is. But discerning between De Facto and De Jure objection gives us a chance to lead in good faith discussions. We are far more likely to return the favor when people listen to us. If we sincerely try to understand another person’s political or ideological position, they are much more likely to listen and understand ours. In the 1936 formative self-help book by Dale Carnegie titled “How To Win Friends & Influence People,” Carnegie spends much of the book emphasizing practice in empathy. He prominently mentions the influential quote from Henry Ford,
“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.”
This practice of empathy can be used for sales tactics, but there is no reason to think it can’t be deployed in our political conversations. Prudent consideration of our opponent’s ideological positions fosters warmth and openness and gives us the best chance to change our minds and bridge gaps.
Wrapping Up —
Discerning between the appropriate application of De Facto or De Jure objections boils down to basic empathic exercises. When discussing our political differences, it seems good practice to understand why you disagree with someone’s position entirely. To fully understand, you’ll need to do the work. We don’t owe this to our ideological opponents. Still, it’s a step towards trust and good faith, and one step forward towards harmony is undoubtedly better than one step back and allowing bitterness and anger to dictate our discussions.
