One Question, Multiple Eyes: Engaging Opposing Perspectives

How do you believe is the best way to engage with someone who shares the complete opposing views or opinions as you?

This segment of 'One Question, Multiple Eyes' asks a question that seems relevant to the current state of global politics now more than ever. As we find ourselves increasingly polarised into our comfortable networks and communities that share the same views, we sometimes forget - or ignore the possibility of - engaging with perspectives that may seem different or contrasting to us. I asked Eugenio, Kelli, Diala and Ben how they would approach engaging with a different, contrasting perspective. Here are their responses:

Ben's Eyes

Ben is a part-time barista and chef at a wine bar in London. When not washing up, he also describes himself as a graduate who recently completed a Masters in International Studies and Diplomacy. A jack-of-all-trades and master of none when it comes to languages, he likes learning, running and talking.

Why do you want to engage someone who holds completely opposing views or opinions to you? George W. Bush noted that today, “Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanisation.” Perhaps not engaging is the safest answer to maintaining a peaceful society. Except it’s not.

Disagreement is vital to the wellbeing of society. It’s how we challenge current narratives, how academia proves new theories, how we determine if someone is guilty of a crime, and how collaborative decisions are made in all walks of life. How then, should we engage someone who holds a completely opposing view to us?

Daniel Cohen states that argument-as-war is the dominant way the world views debate. There must be a winner and loser, and our content should cover our own back while breaking down the opposing view. The problem with this is that both parties become closed off to new ideas. It loses sight of the educational nature of disagreement and ignores the reality of other people’s lived experience. Thus engagement must come first with a view to mutual understanding.

If one hopes to challenge or change another’s ideas, both parties must first acknowledge how they and the other have reached the conclusion they have without defining who is right and who is wrong. This takes calm conversation in a safe space - people rarely want to be seen to change an opinion while in front of a crowd. It means being willing to listen and open to changing one’s own opinion (otherwise how can you expect that from the person in front of you?). It means keeping the conversation on topic and working your way methodically through the issues.

Ultimately, this question asks how should we engage with people (regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our ideas). I guess my answer would be with kindness.

Diala's Eyes

Diala, a Syrian recent MA graduate in International Studies & Diplomacy from SOAS. Diala is a defender of human rights and a believer in the positivity of the Arab Spring. She hopes to participate/influence positive change in the Middle East.

As soon as I read the question I thought to myself I will probably have a very different understanding of ‘complete opposing views’. Engaging with people with different opinions than mine seems very interesting. In fact it might be way more interesting than talking to people with views similar to mine, it sound educating!

But who are the people with complete opposing views of mine? See let’s assume I was a democrat, or a social democrat I would definitely engage with a republican or a conservative. I would try to understand the base of their opinions, and I would tell them why I believe in the things I believe in. But I’m not that privileged, I was not born in an open democratic society.

I grew up in a system that brainwashed everyone, and forced everyone to have the same ideas. I grew up thinking that I was the only one with different opinions, but I wasn’t. Millions of people shared the same values I believed in. Millions wanted freedom and dignity, sounds great doesn’t it? Unfortunately it was not that great, because not everyone believed that all we wanted was a normal dignified life.

People with complete opposing views is -for me- understood to be people who support the Syrian regime. How can I engage with people who support a lunatic person that has been killing his own people for years and continues to do so? I simply can’t. I’ve lost friendships, relationships, and even family members because I simply can not understand how someone in their full mind would support the asshole (don’t excuse my language, this is the nicest word I could use to describe him) who is known as the ‘Syrian President’.

I would love to talk to people with different opinions about education, health care, LGBT rights and many other things. But in my home country those are not the views that are being discussed. The issue at stake back home is life vs. death, and I would not understand or respect someone who chooses the death machine over the dream of a normal life. Maybe in five, ten or twenty years I would engage with people with different opinions but today I will not. I would choose life, dignity and freedom over whatever justifications anyone has to offer.

Eugenio's Eyes

Eugenio is a Venezuelan caught between the terms of “expat” and “refugee”. Eugenio was born and raised in Caracas but has called Belgium, the US and England home. He is proud to have a heritage that includes a Venezuelan emancipation leader as well as French/Spanish immigrants. Eugenio has worked in the diplomacy and charity sectors and is aiming to focus his career on human rights and humanitarian affairs. He is an avid lover of rum, dancing, cinema, cooking and profanities.

When you know you’re going to engage with someone with a different viewpoint you tend to go into the discussion predisposed. You think “this one’s an idiot because he doesn’t believe in climate change”; or “this person is dumb because she thinks Brexit/Trump is fine”. Things like gun control, access to contraception, gay marriage, etc. all seem like common sense arguments that no one in their right mind would be against. And often times, they are. It still doesn’t mean people will agree with you.

Calling it a hard exercise is an understatement. The way I do it is not ‘the best way’ in terms of immediately convincing the other person to change their minds, but it was the way it worked with me. Because I wasn’t born with all my current convictions, nor did they come after one sudden life-changing moment. I changed over time, and the people that left the biggest impact were the ones who came to me as friendlies. They interacted with me and showed that they understood my points but explained in simple terms how they were wrong. They never forced their argument or shut me out, which would have been justified. And this is what made me learn and eventually realize that some of my own stances were horseshit.

I try to do the same now, while basing my opinions on as many demonstrable facts as possible. I resort to arguments that are well-documented and have been proven by people much smarter than me. I try to maintain composure, to resist that urge to dismiss their thoughts. I tend to acknowledge points in the other person’s opinion (“the poor classes in Venezuela were severely neglected before Chavez”, for example) and counter with arguments that I feel can make them see a bigger picture (“the gains made by Chavez for the poor back then don’t justify the starvation Venezuela is experiencing now”), or that demonstrate contradictions in their own logic.

Changing the other person’s opinion completely in one argument is not a priority for me, because most of the times it’s not going to happen, and it’s not how my own opinions have been changed. I focus instead on letting them consider my way of seeing things as a legitimate perspective.

Being sympathetic while trying to get your own point across is a challenge. I still struggle to pull it off, especially when dealing with someone who refuses to accept even the most basic truths (i.e. “the Venezuelan economy is not a mess”; “Chavez is not responsible for Maduro’s mistakes”). When I know I can’t have an argument where I maintain composure, then I don’t even bother to engage because I won’t be able to contribute anything. And arguing angry is the worst way to talk to someone who disagrees with you.

Kelli's Eyes

Kelli is a 29-year old recent graduate from SOAS with an MA in International Studies and Diplomacy. Her dissertation focused on an analysis of cultural bias in the development of human rights standards. Making use of her various undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, she has extensive experience advocating for the recognition of women's rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, and voting rights in the United States. Kelli aims to build a career in the nonprofit world as a researcher and policy analyst.

In today’s hyperconnected world, it is nearly impossible to be in a situation where you can tune out an opposing viewpoint on a particular topic. Whether it is about how to navigate topics regarding race, politics, gender, education, climate, etc., no two people will have the exact same position as you. In other words, there are as many opinions as there are people, which is one of the most beautiful parts of society. That said, engaging with someone who holds a completely opposing viewpoint as you, particularly on a sensitive topic, is admittedly difficult.

Whether the clash of views is over a work project or something larger that centers around an -ism/phobia (racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc.), it is important to recognize that while you believe that your opinion is absolutely the best/correct one, for the other person, they will be thinking the exact same thing about their own opinions. While you are challenging the other person on their view, be ready to have your beliefs challenged - it can’t be a one-sided discussion whereby all you do is say “your opinion is dead wrong” and don’t back up your own ideas. Knowing that your opinions will be challenged at the same time you challenge someone on their beliefs can help you create a stronger defense.

Similarly, one of the best but hardest things to remember in these situations is to stop and take a breath before things escalate out of control. While it might feel good to punch a Nazi in the face because of their beliefs, this tactic can actually work to build a bigger wall between you and the other person. Stopping to take a breath to find a more diplomatic way to defend your opinion is incredibly important. Coming in with only anger and no strategy to backup your beliefs can fuel the polarization between opinions and makes it harder for people to come together and find common ground or get them on your side.

It is also important to actively listen to what the other person has to say. Take time to see their opinion as legitimate to that person; shutting down what the other person has to say without considering their side of things can work against you. I’m not suggesting that you take the time to consider a Nazi’s opinions as legitimate or right, but it is important to understand where their opinions come from. It is about seeking to understand and be understood. Only by understanding where a person’s ideas come from can you find a way forward. Actively listening also serves the benefit of helping you to create a more well-rounded view of the world. By only engaging with people that share a similar set of beliefs, there is often a tendency to shift towards a more extreme and polarized viewpoint (there are many historic and contemporary examples of this, so take your pick). In other words, isolation does nobody any good. Through listening to others and seeing where their ideas come from, you have a more complete view of the world and a better idea of what is the truth.

#onequestionmultipleeyes #oneqmeyes #multipleperspectives #multiculturalism #diversity #question