How to cool the temperature of our often-heated public conversation
In a contentious climate, issues are often reduced to binaries. Time and again, we see the drawing of sharp dividing lines, with the insistence that the correct approach to an issue is found exclusively on one side, the incorrect approach on the other, and no room in the middle for nuance or common ground.
This creates a false choice problem. Complex topics (e.g. immigration, gun control) are framed as all-or-nothing propositions, even though few people actually hold an absolutist view on a given issue. Surveys find that many Americans hold nuanced views, but the public conversation stays polarized in part because moderate voices are drowned out in the public debate. Extreme clarity (or, rather, extreme simplicity) is often rewarded, whereas engaging with nuance can be perceived as weakness or lack of loyalty to one’s “side.” This is perhaps at the heart of the polarization of this moment, and of the growing sway of extremism in our politics and culture. When there are only two sides, this is little room for complexity. Without complexity, we are left with only extremes.
How can we escape this cycle, and return complexity to our conversations? This is a question with many possible answers. A modest step perhaps, but potentially game-changing, could be simply to do a better job of defining the parameters of debate—being clearer about what it is we are actually talking about, rather than ceding the territory of debate to the false choice binaries with which we are so often presented. Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” Such precision helps prevent us from talking past one another, or from mischaracterizing the positions with which we engage.
Read more here