The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Conversations Deserve Intentional Practice (Photo Credit: “Conversation,” Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Wikimedia)
Princeton prides itself on providing students exposure to a multitude of diverse views. The admissions site itself quotes Dean of Admissions Karen Richardson as saying, “When students from different backgrounds lend their voices and talents to the academic and social fabric of the campus, every member of the community benefits. It is this mission that continues to establish Princeton as the dynamic, intellectual learning environment that it is.” Unfortunately, without intentional practice, aspirations remain but a dream.
Many students feel their voices are stifled at this highly acclaimed institution. In one case, a friend of mine was unwilling to perform political research because she was afraid that the results may offend. She reported facing open disregard and even active harassment for her views. Ideally, campus cancel culture would shrivel and disappear by our individual efforts to bring about a campus free of intolerance, resistance, and fear. As a realist, given the current administrative trajectory, students may face the fear of cancelation for years to come.
So where then does this leave us? Do we continue to cower, discussing our views only in echo chambers, silently waiting for social revolution? By no means! The Princeton that we desire, that we have worked so hard to attend, that we wish to stamp with our legacy upon can only exist if our voice fills the void.
Free flowing discussions, addressing solutions for the Nation’s service and the service of all nations (to borrow from our informal motto) can only come about by critically engaging diverse viewpoints. We must reconcile. Due to the toxic polarization in the US, those of us who hold heterodox opinions on race, religion, and even economics must express ourselves carefully.
In order to discuss sensitive topics peaceably with those with whom we disagree, I propose four basic steps. The Golden Rule is the first. If we fear cancelation or disrespect when voicing our opinions, then illustrating how we desire to be treated is essential. The example of Socrates, who denigrated the intelligence of his opponents, and was in turn sentenced to death, is one that should be avoided. Socrates was one of the first recorded cases of someone being put to death for thought crime.
Regardless of the heat or content of the argument, we ought never engage in ad hominems or formulate opinions based on our challenger’s immutable characteristics. This can quickly deteriorate into a toxic environment and encourage the mentality that their current position is locked in place because of their background. As such, this leaves no reason to engage in rational debate. This leads to us versus them mentality and eliminates the possibility to consider the other person as a “reasonable person of good will,” as Professor Robert George often chimes.
Second, come prepared. A famous woodman’s quote, sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln, states, “given six hours to chop down a tree, I will spend three sharpening my axe.” There is no point in initiating a heated discussion on a topic which we are entirely unfamiliar with. This does not mean we need to know all the ends and outs, but if we intend to stand for a position, it would be prudent to understand both sides of the argument. Familiarizing oneself with the other’s argument makes it possible to empathize with their point, even while accepting personal explanations. Sun Tsu said, “To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.” Before discussing a controversial topic, performing mental devil’s advocate scenarios can help prevent strawman arguments and encourage more thorough discussion.
Third, positions should be malleable. Learn from the other’s perspectives to the extent that, if indeed, you find error in your previously held beliefs, you have the opportunity to grow. Your initial stance should not be to proselytize with every conversation, but rather to be genuinely open to new ideas, if the burden of proof is there. In the words of Victor Hugo “change your opinions, keep to your principles; change your leaves, keep intact your roots.”
Finally, the trickiest part. You must conceptually frame discussions. Most topics of interest have keywords and phrases that lead to an entire shutdown of logos, leaving pathos to take the helm. Lee Atwater, political advisor to Ronald Reagan, understood this and effectively utilized word association to discredit political opponents. The opposite should be sought. We do not seek to discredit but rather to discuss, debate, and learn from each other. These “clickbait” terms should be avoided whenever possible if our goal is to convince a skeptic of our position. If your goal is to only to signal our opinions to bystanders, then your time reading this article has been wasted. With such an approach, expecting argument to be well-reasoned would need not be a strenuous demand.
We know these terms from experience and vary by person and discussion. They can be recognized by their effect: a turn of the head, clinch of the jaw, or a quick inarticulate response. We should start with ground we mutually agree on, then build by degree to the differences. If it is a one-word or two-word label, it likely holds a different meaning to each person and should be avoided, especially at the start of a conversation. We should give ourselves an air of mystery, build logic and ethos to our conclusion revealing the reason and meaning to our decision, not just the raw result.
While we cannot prevent others from making snap judgments of us based on our opinions, at least by following these methods we are opening the door to mutually respectful discussion.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.