Joelene Bergonzi, Program, Coordinator, Leadership, Ethics and Social Action, IUB Department of Political Science
|
One reason that people avoid civic and political engagement is the potential for conflict with those who hold different views. As dedicated to surrounding ourselves with only like-minded people as we can be, engaging in community life will inevitably lead to discussion and potential conflict with people who hold different viewpoints than our own.
Two years ago, I began teaching an introductory service-learning course for the program in Leadership, Ethics and Social Action, called Beyond the Sample Gates. I noticed that the students would refrain from engaging in discussion when they assumed that they disagreed with something said by a guest or by a classmate and sometimes by the instructor and the course readings. This silence, disengagement and withdrawal are pervasive parts of the undergraduate culture.
Disengagement from what is happening around us is also pervasive in family, social and business contexts. When the additional factor of a difference in viewpoints is present, we may not even be aware of how much emotional, intellectual and even physical distance we can put between us and the situation. That distance and disengagement is an obstacle for solving problems, having relationships and participating in community decision-making.
What can be done to further civic engagement in these difficult situations? It is important to learn and model the skills of dialogue with people who have different views. We use these skills in doing business, in family life, in the classroom and in political involvement.
• Listen for needs instead of trying to compose a rebuttal. People are more inclined to listen when they feel listened to, rather than if they feel attacked. It is even possible to engage with a group of people with different needs and to come up with an action that will meet the needs of the group as a next step. That outcome requires listening instead of pushing one’s own agenda.
The intention is to agree to listen and respect other people’s views and to work with their needs toward community decision-making. It is NOT about getting some people to agree to change their views.
• Explore the most appealing part of the opposite viewpoint, then the downside of one’s own argument. Next, one could acknowledge the downside of the most feared view and then the positive part of one’s own perspective. Exploring one’s own assumptions and fears is important to articulating individual and community needs.
Community mediators are having good results by providing an open space for different views to be heard in a non-adversarial atmosphere. Family and marital conflicts, victim/offender reconciliations and even activist groups who disagree have been able to listen and decide on actions in this context. Training in the skills of a mediator has helped me to coach the students in my class as they explore their assumptions and listen to different viewpoints.
The model of deliberative dialogue and the use of community mediation to make a space for conflict of views will not work in situations where counseling or protection from violence is a priority. But that leaves a huge arena in which we can practice listening and dialogue in order to creatively solve the complex problems of community. Until more people feel comfortable with their ability to engage with those situations, “civic engagement” will be restricted to volunteering, charity and polarized voting—instead of encompassing a vision of real community participation that includes political involvement and advocacy for change.
Resources:
Leadership, Ethics and Social Action: http://www.indiana.edu/~lesa/
Community Justice and Mediation Center (Bloomington): http://www.bloomington.in.us/~mediate/
Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute: http://www.spea.indiana.edu/icri/
Civic Practices Network: http://www.cpn.org
Center for Democracy and Citizenship: http://www.publicwork.org/
|
