MMany of my best friends think that some of my most strongly held beliefs about important topics are obviously false or even meaningless. Sometimes they say it to my face. How can we still be friends? Part of the answer is that these friends and I are philosophers, and philosophers learn to deal with positions on the edge of sanity. Furthermore, I explain and give arguments in favor of my claims, and they patiently listen and respond with arguments of their own against me and their positions. By exchanging reasons in the form of arguments, we show respect and come to understand each other better.
Philosophers are rare, so this kind of civil disagreement might still seem impossible among ordinary people. However, some stories give hope and show how to overcome high barriers.
A famous example involved Ann Atwater and CP Ellis in my hometown of Durham, North Carolina; described in the book The Best of Enemies (1996) by Osha Gray Davidson and in an upcoming film. Atwater was a poor, black, single father who led Operation Breakthrough, which sought to improve local black neighborhoods. Ellis was an equally poor but white father who was proud to be Exalted Cyclops of the local Ku Klux Klan. They couldn’t have started further apart. At first, Ellis brought a gun and henchmen to city meetings in black neighborhoods. Once, Atwater staggered toward Ellis with a knife and had to be restrained by his friends.
Despite their mutual hatred, when the courts ordered Durham to integrate its public schools, Atwater and Ellis were pressured to co-chair a charrette, a series of public discussions lasting eight hours a day for 10 days in July 1971, about how implement the integration. To plan their ordeal, they got together and began by asking questions, responding with reasons, and listening to each other. Atwater asked Ellis why he opposed integration. He responded that he mainly wanted his children to receive a good education, but integration would ruin their schools. Atwater was probably tempted to yell at him, call him a racist, and storm off. But she didn’t do it. Instead, he listened and said that he also wanted her children, as well as his, to receive a good education. Ellis then asked Atwater why he worked so hard to improve housing for blacks. She responded that she wanted her friends to have better homes and better lives. She wanted the same for her friends.
When each listened to the other’s reasons, they realized that they shared the same basic values. They both loved their children and wanted a decent life for their communities. As Ellis later put it: “I used to think Ann Atwater was the meanest black woman I had ever seen in my life… But, you know, she and I got together one day for an hour or two and talked.” And she is trying to help her people like I am trying to help my people.” After realizing their commonalities, they were able to work together to peacefully integrate Durham schools. For the most part, they were successful.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
None of this happened quickly or easily. Their heated discussions lasted 10 long days on the charrette. They couldn’t afford to leave their jobs for so long if their employers (including Duke University, where Ellis worked in maintenance) hadn’t given them paid time off. They were also exceptional individuals who had strong incentives to work together, as well as many personal virtues, including intelligence and patience. Still, these cases show that sometimes sworn enemies can become close friends and can achieve a lot for their communities.
Why can’t liberals and conservatives do the same thing today? It’s true that extremists on both sides of today’s political scene often hide in their echo chambers and homogeneous neighborhoods. They never listen to the other side. When they do venture, the level of rhetoric on the internet is terrible. Trolls resort to slogans, insults and jokes. When they do bother to give arguments, their arguments often simply justify what suits their feelings and points to tribal alliances.
The spread of bad arguments is undeniable but not inevitable. Rare but valuable examples, such as Atwater and Ellis, show us how we can use philosophical tools to reduce political polarization.
The first step is to arrive. Philosophers go to conferences to find critics who can help them improve their theories. Likewise, Atwater and Ellis set up meetings with each other to figure out how to work together on the charrette. We must all recognize the value of listening attentively and charitably to opponents. Then we must take the trouble to talk to those opponents, even if it means leaving our comfortable neighborhoods or favorite websites.
Second, we need to ask questions. Since Socrates, philosophers have been known as much for their questions as for their answers. And if Atwater and Ellis hadn’t asked each other questions, they would never have learned that what mattered most to them were their children and alleviating the frustrations of poverty. By asking the right questions in the right way, we can often uncover shared values or at least avoid misunderstanding by opponents.
In third place, we have to be patient. Philosophers teach courses for months on a single topic. Likewise, Atwater and Ellis spent 10 days in a public charrette before they finally came to understand and appreciate each other. They also welcomed other community members to talk as long as they wanted, just as good teachers include conflicting perspectives and bring all students into the conversation. Today, we need to slow down and fight the tendency to exclude competing points of view or to interrupt and retort with quick one-liners and slogans that slander opponents.
In fourth place, we have to give arguments. Philosophers generally acknowledge that they owe reasons for their claims. Likewise, Atwater and Ellis did not simply announce their positions. They referred to the specific needs of their children and their communities to explain why they held their positions. In controversial issues, neither side is obvious enough to escape the demands for evidence and reasons, which are presented in the form of arguments.
None of these steps are easy or quick, but books and online courses on reasoning, especially in philosophy, are available to teach us how to appreciate and develop arguments. We can also learn through practice by reaching out, asking questions, being patient, and making arguments in our daily lives.
We still can’t reach everyone. Even the best arguments sometimes fall on deaf ears. But we should not hastily generalize to the conclusion that arguments always fail. Moderates are often open to reason on both sides. So are those very rare specimens who admit that they (like most of us) don’t know where they stand on complex moral and political issues.
Two lessons emerge. First, we must not give up trying to reach extremists, like Atwater and Ellis, despite how difficult it is. Second, moderates are easier to reach, so it usually makes sense to try to reason with them first. Practicing on more receptive audiences can help us improve our arguments, as well as our argument presentation skills. These lessons will allow us to do our part to reduce the polarization that stunts our societies and our lives.
By: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of practical ethics in the department of philosophy at the Kenan Institute at Duke University.
Article published in and transferred for publication in .