Over the past several years, the nation has seen the capacity for authentic discussion and civil discourse between opposing political parties and individuals deteriorate. The political divide has become a gaping crevasse rather than a figurative line in the sand. Back-biting and name-calling are the norm, making it difficult if not impossible to engage in meaningful conversation with someone who has a different perspective than our own.
In light of these challenges, there is a critical need to rebuild the competencies essential to civil discourse. Research. Negotiation. Oration. The ability to listen to all sides of an argument, irrespective of one's personal opinion. And the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. These are the skills we must cultivate for people to come together, have productive discussions and begin to solve challenging problems.
Faculty Insights
Civil Discourse is Essential to Develop Beyond Ourselves
Kimberly P. Weber, Professor of Special Education School of Education
"Civil discourse is essential to develop beyond ourselves. Being able to accept that many are never able to accurately see from another’s vantage point can become a place to begin to search for common ground and agreements that can benefit many. It is often difficult to understand the view of another when our minds are full of our own opinions, knowledge and experiences. Learning to set aside what we think we know may open doors to seeing beyond ourselves. We must speak kindly, listen intently, hear hard things, show respect through actions, and see that not everything is about us.How will we make changes the world needs most if we are unable to have the difficult conversations needed to gain a larger worldview?"
Civil Discourse is a Skill and a Calling
John N. Sheveland, Professor of Religious Studies College of Arts & Sciences
"In the exchange of wisdom but also grievances across lines of religious difference, civil discourse is a skill and a calling. It invites the opening of minds and hearts to the humanity of others, not to agree, disagree, or change their ideas but in a desire to encounter and accompany, with hope for reconciliation. Because we lack the deep listening which strengthens civil discourse, we are called out from habituated narrowness of vision and indifference. In 1994 the Jesuits wrote, citing an address of John Paul II in Chennai, “An open and sincere interreligious dialogue is our cooperation with God’s ongoing dialogue with humanity. ‘By dialogue we let God be present in our midst, for as we open ourselves to one another, we open ourselves to God.’"
Civil Discourse is About Building a Culture of Respect
Molly Pepper, Professor of Management School of Business Administration
"In human resource management, we depend on civil discourse to create working environments where employees can thrive. Civil discourse is about building a culture of respect where people can bring their whole selves to the workplace and feel safe doing so. It is important that leadership models civil discourse through difficult but productive conversations, builds policies that support employee rights, and always follows through to rebuild relationships when discourse falls short of civility. In HR, we talk about training employees to engage in civil discourse, recognizing that an organization where diverse opinions are heard and respected is not only a great place to work, but is an organization with a competitive advantage."
The Common Definition of Civil Discourse Has to Change
Chris Francovich, Associate Professor, Doctoral Program School of Leadership Studies
"I believe that what I think of as a common definition of civil discourse has to change – to move away from the liberal idea that the word ‘civil’ connotes a generalized and universalized ethical framework that ipso facto legitimizes hegemonic and/or global economic, political, social and psychological phenomena. What ‘civil discourse’ must, in my view, evolve to is the recognition that all interlocutors must learn the skills of suspending their judgments, preferences and biases while simultaneously regulating their affective response to the utterances and affects of others all the while staying with the trouble of establishing mutual intelligibility. A key element of this conceptualization is that the weight and import of significations must be commensurate with the local and situated nature of the discourse itself."