Lessons in lockdown: how to make the world safe for differences of opinion
Last Christmas, I discovered the story of a scientist who should be a hero to anyone who values the free exchange of ideas and opposes prejudice in all its forms. Ruth Benedict dedicated herself to the study of culture and shattered gender stereotypes by rising to the top of her field. She also coined the phrase that has stayed with me since — when asked what the purpose of anthropology was, she replied: “to make the world safe for human difference”.
Fast forward to a present day that was unthinkable at the end of last year, and after starting a podcast with another science graduate and trailblazer, Ioanna Maraki, as a project to help me stay sane during lockdown, I have discovered a whole new set of stories. Here, our heroes are lawyers, campaigners, teachers, and entrepreneurs, who are helping to make the world safe for differences of opinion — no small mission in a climate of polarisation and distrust.
The podcast, called Dare to Disagree, charts the careers, relationships, and lives of people who see disagreement as an opportunity to learn and grow instead of viewing it as a threat to be avoided. Reflecting on what makes them so unique, it becomes clear that they are not. There is no reason why all of us cannot follow their example if we heed the three lessons that emerged from these interviews as being central to shaping who they are today.
Lesson #1: we are more open to beliefs that challenge our own when we hear them from people we know, like, and trust.
One of the most enjoyable and eye-opening interviews of the series was with educator and entrepreneur, Heather, and political risk consultant, Jordan. Heather described herself as a left-wing socialist and ardent feminist from north east England, whose first act of political activism, aged 5, was berating a classmate for perpetuating sexist stereotypes by bringing a barbie doll into school. Yes. FIVE! Jordan, a right-wing conservative from Florida, USA, summed up his political beliefs by saying: “I would have a tattoo of Ronald Reagan if I didn’t disapprove of tattoos”. Jordan and Heather are a couple in a loving relationship.
But when other once happy couples have reportedly broken up over Brexit, how do you become a person who is attracted, not repelled, by someone so different and how do you even meet them? You start with what you have in common, something that you both enjoy and makes you feel comfortable with each other. In Heather and Jordan’s case, this was a debating tournament (I was not surprised either). That leads us to the second ingredient of this recipe: seeking out activities that are likely to attract people with a range of conflicting beliefs and where explicitly disagreeing with a potential date is not the taboo it might be at. say, a cookery class — or even most public speaking clubs for that matter.
Lesson #2: we are more likely to understand why people hold these beliefs when we try to defend them as if they were our own.
This comes with an important caveat: that if you ask people to do this from a standing start, they will either refuse to do it or deliberately do it badly in a bid to parody a view they could not possibly understand any ‘right-thinking’ person holding. Asking someone to defend a belief they do not hold only works when they have at least some personal credibility on the line that pushes them to present it — and therefore see it for themselves — in the best possible light. This was certainly one of the takeaways from our interview with barrister Grahame Anderson, who clearly took pride in his ability to be an effective advocate for his clients and didn’t need to be passionately committed to their cause to be able to do it well.
Committing yourself wholeheartedly to defending someone else’s beliefs might still seem like a big risk — especially when your own credibility is on the line — so taking the time to create an environment in which such behaviour is encouraged is essential. Perhaps our most high profile guest, entrepreneur and author, Margaret Heffernan, who had led five different companies in her time as a CEO in the tech industry, offered some valuable insights on how to create a company culture that fostered what she called ‘constructive conflict’: a tool for rooting out cognitive biases, like Groupthink, and stimulating creative thinking.
Lesson #3: the more open we are to having our own beliefs challenged, the more confident we become in our ability to defend them.
One of the most striking comments made by any of our guests came from Charlotte Calkin, the Director of the award-winning Restorative Engagement Forum. She told us that she sought out a career in having extremely challenging conversations precisely because she felt she wasn’t very good at them. The resilience it takes to stand up for what we believe when people are queuing up to tell us we are wrong, which can often be vital to countering the pernicious effect of Groupthink, is something Charlotte had to learn. Yet, therein lies the good news: that resilience is most definitely something anyone can learn.
Getting to that point means being willing to subject what you believe to the most intense scrutiny. That’s where having a safe space to practice becomes so important as was clear from talking to solicitor, Surya Kumaravel, about how debating controversial topics as a student helped him clarify and defend his own stance on those issues — not something you can casually do in the office over lunch. Once in that safe space, according to lobbyist and serial persuader, Shaughan Dolan, the single most valuable skill that will help you get the most out of the experience is not speaking, but listening — after all you can’t respond to a question or objection if you don’t know what it is or why someone feels that way.
Secret lesson #4: see the bigger picture — why does any of this matter?
Our fourth guest on the show was Jean-Michel Habineza, the founder of youth advocacy charity, iDebate Rwanda. He and his colleagues have trained thousands of young Rwandans, who grew up in the shadow of a genocide that killed almost a million people, in non-violent communication. Equipping them with the skills to peacefully explore and resolve differences of opinion, so they are seen as an opportunity to understand each other better, not as a threat to be forcefully repudiated, is literally a matter of life and death.
Margaret Heffernan too reminded us of how important it is to remain mindful of the ultimate objective that should guide the way we approach disagreement. It is not about winning the argument, but ensuring the process of making difficult decisions is seen as legitimate by everyone involved, even those (especially those) who disagree with the outcome.
Final thought: making the world safe for differences of opinion is about improving each other, not moving each other.
Returning briefly to our star couple, Heather and Jordan, one question you may be asking yourself is whether they have changed each other’s minds and gradually converged towards a happy centrist consensus since they started dating. The short answer is no. They are pretty much the same people they were when they met, but have changed in more subtle ways: for example, Jordan now appreciates the importance of people from traditionally marginalised communities growing up with role models that look and sound like them; Heather places a much greater weight on the costs to individual freedoms of enhancing group rights.
But then their goal never was to change each other, but to accept each other and welcome being held to a higher standard by someone who wanted to see a better world for everyone just as much as they did, but had a very different view of how best to get there. Or as Jordan much more succinctly put it: “we’ve improved each other, not moved each other”.
