PURPOSE
threshold of change , and how we create the space for higher quality public debates where passionate opposition and science shape constructive , mind-changing conversations .
I have interviewed political pundits , philosophers , moral psychologists , media gurus and social scientists , and have found the intellectual environment is ripe for this discussion . They all agree that polluted public discourse is an enormous obstacle to change — and many of them have been looking into some aspect of this problem for a long time , some for their entire careers .
We need only look at the Donald Trump campaign to see a glaring example of this kind of toxic , fear-fuelled dialogue that polarizes society and stokes hatred . Similar nastiness is also washing over Europe and seen in the Freedom Party of Austria where a political debate in May deteriorated into an ugly slugfest ; in France ’ s National Front Party where the leader compared Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation of WW2 ; and the Brexit vote which led to Labour MP Jo Cox being slain by a man screaming “ Britain First .”
During my early interviews for this book I came to understand , as Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan put it that , “ just as we can pollute the natural environment , we can pollute public conversations .” While the experts disagree about why this is happening , they concur when it comes to the damage it does : toxic conversations stall our ability to think collectively and solve the many dangerous problems that are stalking everyone on Earth .
David Suzuki ’ s question stirred up sage advice from experts such as Columbia University ’ s Eric
Johnson , a behavioral economist who rephrased the question : Why isn ’ t public discourse on the environment more data driven , and why are we listening to each other shout instead of listening to the evidence ?
Linguistics professor Deborah Tannen suggested that our habit of attacking the motives and character of those who disagree with us distracts the public from the real issues and undermines genuine opposition . “ Accusing opponents of venal motives makes it easy to dismiss valid criticism .” She added this combative style of public debate leaves little room for the middle ground and what ’ s worse , “ when extremes define the issues , problems seem insoluble and citizens become alienated from the political process .”
Caustic dialogue is evident whether people are talking about immigration , gun control or climate change , and it comes from all quarters including advocates , elected officials and industry groups .
As a PR specialist I have spent 30 years dealing with tough issues , straddling the worlds of government and industry , business and the environment , and I see this dysfunctional dialogue and nastiness as a threshold problem . If we don ’ t find a way to disagree more constructively we may never arrive at timely solutions to our collective problems . When faced with an onslaught of over-the-top advocacy , not to mention corrupt or toxic conversations , people lose interest , lose hope or simply lose the thread of what they ’ re being told . All this leads to escalating polarization and eventually to gridlock .
Vigorous discussion and debate are vital in a healthy democracy , and we have to defend that right while protecting our public square for generations to come . This imperative reminds me of the famous tragedy of Guernica , poignantly captured
50 | NEW CONSCIOUSNESS REVIEW