On Civility

I had the good fortune the other night to attend a “dialogue” on civil discourse, hosted by Krista Tippet of Minnesota Public Radio.  It was a very interesting exchange, and it helped me to pull together some ideas that have been floating around in my head.  The exchange provided many insights, but there was no discussion of a systematic or organized way to actually set about improving our civic discourse.  This note pulls together some recently published ideas into a proposal for our elected leaders.  See what you think of it.

Neural Research

Ms. Tippet expressed the hope that the science of neural research would help us understand how human beings work so we can improve on how we interact.  She is right that there have been significant advances in this field, but the evidence so far is pointing in the other direction – our normal tendencies are driven by emotions and instincts that are somewhat above the primate, but not much.  We respond with our gut, with snap judgments, we love black and white issues, and we adore a strong leader, with clear directions and hierarchy.  The modest contributions of civility and rationality always come later, and at a higher level of what we call civilization.  An attack on our ideas is responded to much as an attack on our physical well being – we defend ourselves.  That is true even when the attacker provides new information that runs counter to our prevailing beliefs.  We will ignore that information, and argue even more strenuously for our perspective, precisely because we are attacked. See this piece by Ed Yong, from Discover Magazine of Oct. 10, 2010.  (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/)

It is helpful to understand these instinctual tendencies, if only to be able to counter them with tactics based on some higher level of rational thinking.  But where are we going to learn how to counter these mindless engines that drive us?

Research on Negotiating Practices

Today, there is a fertile source of ideas for civil discourse in the “science” of Negotiation.  This field has become a formal science, with research studies that explore exactly what works and what does not in negotiating agreements.  I took a formal class in negotiation from the Harvard Negotiating Project over 30 years ago when I was negotiating labor agreements.  The focus then was more philosophical, based on the book by Fisher, Ury, Patton, On Getting to Yes.  At that time this approach was taught as a model way to achieve agreements which would be positive to both sides.  In this approach, a compromise is not considered a successful outcome.  And the “hard ball” approach, resulting in “win / lose”, is a negative outcome for both parties, because of the long term effects on the relationship, and the general failure to implement something which is seen as a loss.

In the past few decades, the field has moved from philosophical debate about methods to one based on extensive research.  Doctoral students and practitioners now conduct controlled exercises which explore various techniques and methods of negotiating agreements and settling differences.  I have taught a university level course on the topic several times.  As the rule goes, the teacher learns more than the students.  I had been negotiating agreements and business deals for 30 years, but this course alerted me to the extensive body of knowledge that is developing in this area.  The text used is by Leigh L. Thompson, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, and it has hundreds of concrete examples of the results of these experiments.

Seek First To Understand

The formal field of negotiating has documented an abundance of effective ideas and methods.  I have managed, tongue in cheek of course, to distill all of this knowledge into a single priceless nugget of information – “seek first to understand”.  This is, of course, from Dr. Steven Covey, the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.  I taught  this workshop for 10 years, and I learned a great deal from it as well.

The genius about this technique is what happens to the relationship between the parties in a discussion.  Just by actively listening to understand, and not to argue, one party gives the other the tremendous gift of care and respect.  That expression of caring, even if just a mechanical exercise, builds up trust in the other person, and changes the tenor of the discussion profoundly.  I have seen it happen in a five minute exchange, where one party simply listened, and reflected back their understanding of the other’s perspective.

This works even better if the parties actually spend time working on the relationship itself, prior to any discussion.  The most critical results happen away from the formal bargaining table.  The greatest insights occur when people work together on a common problem, without attacking each other.  M. Scott Peck has written a small volume which explains this method in considerable detail:  A Different Drum.  He is persuaded that if he can get group of people in a room where they talk with each other for 3 days, then they can negotiate on any topic with civility and superior outcomes.  As the parties become acquainted with each other, with their beliefs and backgrounds, with the hopes and aspirations, they gain a mutual respect.  They continue to disagree, but they see each other as human beings with values.  They build up a trusting relationship, which could not have existed before.

I was recently in a League of Women Voters forum where two former Minnesota Governors talked about civility in public discussions – Al Quie and Wendel Anderson.  These two men, from different political persuasions, are very good friends.  Mr. Quie described his relationship with the then DFL Majority Leader, Roger Moe.  Quie was recently elected, when he happened to attend some form of religious observance with Moe.  Roger Moe spoke to the assembly at some length about his faith and his aspirations, and it dawned on Quie that this was a man of principles and values.  When he returned to the Capital, he invited him to his office for a more in depth discussion. From that point on, the two of them had a warm personal relationship, despite their political differences.  They negotiated issues with mutual respect.  You can find more on that here:    http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=898016. 
The story is also recounted in the book about Governor Quie by Mitch Pearlstein, Riding into the Sunrise.  Roger Moe wrote one of the forwards to the book.

I understand that our elected representatives NEVER visit across the aisle.  They do not even sit with the “opponents” from the other party.  They will discuss issues openly only in their own party caucus.  Is this the background for healthy dialogue?

Civic Caucus Citizen’s Assembly or Jury

How can we help our elected representatives, and ourselves, get to a level of civic discourse?  The Civic Caucus (http://www.civiccaucus.org/) recently crafted a proposal which was sent to the Governor and the Legislature as a means to resolve our enormous budget deficit.  They propose a citizen’s assembly or jury, composed of carefully selected individuals from different groups that would work together for a week or more to achieve a consensus from the citizen’s perspective.  This would then be presented to the legislature.  There is some research that indicates that this kind of “people’s jury” actually works.  You can find the proposal here: 

 http://www.civiccaucus.org/Interviews/2010/Crosby-Ned_Hottinger-John_12-10-10.htm.

I like the idea, but there are some major problems with it.  It would be expensive just to convene the group.  And when the result is presented, odds are that our fearless elected representatives would have no great respect for the result.  They were not involved in its development, and they would not have changed any of their perspective of the other side.  There is also a serious question whether the group could actually come to any creative solutions without doing an enormous amount of homework, and without building the trusting relationships described above.

Elected Representatives Retreat

Here is an approach that might formalize this for our elected representatives: At the start of every new session of the legislature, or the start of any extensive dialogue on issues, the participants MUST attend a three day workshop, where they all talk about their personal lives, their loves, their children, their beliefs, their hopes and fears for the future.  The hope is that after three days of this kind of interchange, they will build up a level of mutual trust that will result in a respectful, civil level of discourse.  If it is done well, this kind of negotiation will generally produce creative results beyond compromise.

This is almost a principle of human discourse – we need a formal method to overcome the attack / defensive gut reactions wired in our brains.  Think of the almost universal protocol of the white flag.  I am NOT the enemy - give me a minute, here.  If a conversation is not based on some level of mutual respect, the results are generally negative.  The genius of this approach to negotiating is that it always expands the pie, it does not just cut it up, and it always invites people to creative discourse that can generate a truly novel, mutually beneficial approach to problems. 

Now, how do we get this into Robert’s Rules and the rules of Congress?  How about introducing it in grade school civics classes?  It would be like learning about double entry bookkeeping, or that we need an agenda before a meeting, or how to index books in alibrary, or how elections work. If you want to take part in civic discourse, you must first spend the time with the other side that is required to gain this level of mutual respect.  We all understand at this point that we need to have an agenda to have a productive meeting.  Perhaps we can learn that we need to invest the time to share our values and beliefs in order to have a productive discussion about anything.