Two techniques for achieving better civil and political discourse
How “steel-manning” and active listening can help us have more productive conversations
The state of debate and civil discourse in America has reached a nadir in recent years. Americans of all political backgrounds find it stressful and frustrating to have conversations with people whose views differ from their own. Majorities have reported self-censoring their views or beliefs around at least some people. Many lament that the country feels hopelessly divided.
It’s precisely because of these feelings that Americans must get better at having difficult conversations. An important step in that process is for people of different ideological persuasions to improve how they respond when encountering views that deviate from their own.
So today, I want to touch on two possible solutions for how we might get back to interacting in a healthy and productive manner with people who hold different views from ourselves and turn down the political temperature in the process: steel-manning and active listening.
Steel-manning
Most people are probably familiar with the concept of “straw-manning.” When I “straw man” someone else’s argument, I am either engaging with a point that my interlocuter did not make or trying to distort their viewpoint in a way that is meant to help me “win” a debate or discussion. So if someone says, for example, that they think car pollution is a big problem and that the government should regulate auto emissions, and another person retorts, “Oh, so you want to ban all gas-powered cars?,” the second person is straw-manning what the first one said.
The opposite of this is “steel-manning.” This means actively deciding to engage the strongest version of someone else’s argument. Steel-manning another person’s point of view can accomplish a couple of things:
It prevents us from lazily dismissing another viewpoint as dumb, backwards, misinformed, etc. We’ve all likely been tempted to disregard what some people have to say out of hand, especially if we know they belong to a group that we don’t (like a different race, religion, or political party). But when we do this, we cheat ourselves of the chance to learn from others and understand why they believe the things they do.
It forces us to be a bit more intellectually humble, to truly consider information or perspectives that could complicate our worldview or sense of morality. While this may sound scary, it doesn’t have to be; on the contrary, testing our personal views by engaging with the best version of another argument can make us smarter in the process. And even if we come away unconvinced of it, we may at least have a better understanding of why we hold our current beliefs.
Of course, this may be easier said than done. It takes a lot of brainpower to see others as complicated humans and to sympathize with their contradictions. Our species evolved using heuristics like stereotyping to distinguish our own tribe or clan from others, often for the sake of survival. Today, part of this stereotyping process usually involves lumping people who share some identity characteristic into groups and making moral judgments—good or bad—about them all.
As a result, we also tend to see arguments that we don’t like or think are silly as representative of what everyone in a certain group thinks. Because humans are predisposed to defending our in-groups, there is an incentive to look for the worst version of the other group’s views or to straw-man them in a way that makes for easy pickings. But all this accomplishes is engendering greater resentment between the groups and exacerbating polarization along those dividing lines.
Another way to think about the steel-man technique is to interpret someone else’s argument in the most charitable light possible. It’s likely that many of us have heard someone express a view with which we vehemently disagreed and immediately thought to ourselves, “The only possible reason they could have for holding that view is because they are a bad person.”
When we step back and think about it, though, that’s a rather absurd notion—that other people formed their values or beliefs out of a desire to be morally bad. We did not evolve on the basis of modern-day political sensibilities such that some people are hardwired to reach conclusions based on virtuous moral reasoning while others are hardwired to do the opposite. Of course, no one should be naïve, either. But unless there’s reason to believe that someone is expressing a viewpoint in bad faith—that they don’t really believe what they’re saying but rather are just saying it to get under your skin or score cheap points—it’s worth giving them the benefit of the doubt.
What does this look like in practice? Liberals, for example, might grapple with arguments coming from principled conservatives about strengthening border security rather than assuming the xenophobic views of an alt-right troll who hates all non-white people are shared by everyone on the political right. And instead of downplaying the impact of climate change because a few activists behaved in a silly or obnoxious manner, conservatives would do well to engage with good-faith voices on the left who are not climate alarmists but who do recognize the need to respond to the increasingly troubling science on this issue.
When we caricature other people’s beliefs for the sake of winning an argument, it’s a tacit acknowledgment that we aren’t confident in our own beliefs—that we don’t think they would stand up against stronger opposing views. So the next time you hear someone express a view that you disagree with, try steel-manning it. You don’t even have to do it out loud or in the moment. It can be an exercise you do long after that conversation has ended. Practicing this can hopefully help us all hone better arguments in favor of our own views and better respect people who disagree with us.
Active listening
The ability to steel-man someone’s argument often hinges on our willingness to do something else: listen to them. This one may sound almost too easy, but it can be difficult to do in practice. When many of us hear someone express a view we reject, our default response is often to go into debate mode. The thing that person said needs to be challenged or confronted, lest their morally or intellectually wrong opinion linger unopposed long enough for others to consider it!
But simply hearing the words coming out of someone else’s mouth without absorbing what they are saying isn’t sufficient for improving discourse. We must be willing to listen to what they are saying without interrupting and without formulating retorts in our heads in real time. This is called “active listening.”
Some people may be familiar with this concept in contexts outside of politics. Active listening is often a tool that marriage counselors suggest for couples who are having a hard time communicating. It encourages people to actively consider the thoughts their partner is voicing rather than thinking of excuses as to why the thing that person is saying is wrong or misguided.
As America’s political divisions have sometimes been likened to a troubled marriage, active listening could help us heal some wounds on that front too. When we enter discussions with people of another political persuasion with the mind set that we are there to debate them, we are already shutting down the possibility that we can listen to them with an open mind. Our body language will likely give off the impression that we’re not interested in what they have to say or that we think their point of view is invalid or stupid. We’re certainly cheating ourselves of the chance to steel-man their argument and put our own beliefs to the test.
Think about conversations you’ve had. Have you ever tried to convince someone of your point of view on something, but it was clear they only heard about a third of what you said and latched onto a handful of points that they really wanted to shoot down? Or their response focused on points you didn’t make? You probably felt frustrated and less likely to want to continue that conversation. It’s worth remembering those feelings when thinking about how to behave when the tables are turned.
Active listening does not require you to change your mind, nor does it mean you can’t speak up with your own opinions as part of the conversation. But when it’s your turn to talk, try demonstrating that you truly heard the other person. One way to do this is to note an area of agreement (if one exists). I often say, “I understand where you are coming from,” and I do this sincerely, not dismissively or as a pivot to a point about why they are wrong. It goes a long way with other people when they can tell they’re being heard, and they may consequently be more willing to listen to you as well.
To reiterate, none of this is meant to suggest that everyone must be open to completely rethinking their core values or beliefs. Simply making an effort to better understand where others are coming from does not require one to abandon everything they believed before. However, conversations like this always offer a chance to learn: maybe it’s a new piece of evidence that forces us to update our prior views, or maybe it’s just the motivations someone has for holding beliefs that differ from our own.
Moreover, these habits can take time to form. Lest I give off the impression that I have somehow mastered them, I must admit that I still fail at doing both of these practices from time to time. It’s in our nature to get defensive and combative when we hear things we don’t like, or to caricature views we disagree with, and it takes deliberate work to fight those impulses.
I’m also under no illusions that using these techniques will be easy—or even desirable—in every conversation you enter into. There may be some folks who just want to rant at you or who espouse prejudiced viewpoints. It is not possible to, for example, steel-man racism. And it may be difficult to actively listen when someone is attacking people who share your religious tradition.
However, not everyone who subscribes to a different political persuasion from ourselves holds those types of views or behaves badly. No doubt, there will always be people who possess beliefs we disagree with, sometimes passionately. But I think most of us would love to get back to a time when we don’t feel so stressed and angry about politics and the culture wars all the time. Working to improve the way we conduct civil discourse and learning how to cope with those disagreements will hopefully leave us all better off—both individually and as a country.