Q: Have you ever had a sensible and reasonable discussion with a colleague who's on some other side of the political spectrum from you? How do you do it? I'm in a department where I stand alone. I don't like to fight about politics. I actually believe both major parties (and some of the minor ones) have some good ideas. I'd like to think we could get along better, even if it's just in the faculty lounge. When a colleague strides up to you and says, "Hey, I hear you're a Xxxxxxxxxx. Well, I'm a Yyyyyyyyy, and let me tell you where you've gone wrong," how do you handle it?
How constructive a conversation -can- one have, whenever a (supposed) colleague strides up to you and says, "Hey, I hear you're a Xxxxxxxxxx. Well, I'm a Yyyyyyyyy, and let me tell you where you've gone wrong"? Have you had one or more actual cases in which exactly or almost exactly this was said to you?
ReplyDeleteIsn't one supposed to avoid discussing politics and religion in polite company, or at work? Nevertheless, they can be fair game if they are genuinely part of your job. As a physics and astronomy proffie, I don’t often get aggressive lines of questioning like this from colleagues. I do get them from students, about once per class of 100 students, each semester.
They’re mainly religiously motivated students, who want me to stop teaching about (and sometimes even holding the opinions) how fossils and other evidence show that there’s been life on Earth for 3.8 billion years, how radioactive isotopes and other evidence show that the Solar System and Earth are 4.6 billion years old, and how the cosmic background radiation, cosmological redshift, and abundances of light elements show that the Universe began in a hot, dense state 13.7 +/- 0.1 billion years ago, widely referred to as the Big Bang. These are legitimate topics for a general-ed science course, so I just cite the evidence.
In case they don’t want to listen, I’ve taken the liberty of writing up a summary of the evidence, in my class notes that I require as a textbook (that I’m still trying to turn into a real textbook). I do try to be fair: I will listen to any scientific evidence they may offer, in order to refute my evidence. (Claiming that the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids the development of complexity and life is incorrect: if it weren’t, a refrigerator couldn’t work.) If all they have is someone’s say-so, I remind them that science is based on evidence.
I do still give them more than one out. I literally tell them that one doesn’t have to be an atheist to be a good scientist, nor, more to the point, get an A in my class. Once a student flat-out asked, “Do you require belief?” I grinned and said “No!” They loved it: they told me, “You’re so open-minded!” But then, how could I possibly require belief? How would I check it? I’m not a mind-reader: I can’t check my student’s minds, and not give good grades to students who don’t believe me.
I also quite literally tell my students, “Why should you believe me? You shouldn’t: you should think for yourselves.” I have a writing exercise in which I have the students explain in 1-3 sentences that a 9-year-old could understand why Earth’s daytime sky is blue, and why sunsets are red. I have another writing exercise the next week, in which I have them explain, in 100-250 words, how we know Earth is round, how we know that Earth spins (not why it spins: the question is, how do we know it spins?), how do we know Earth orbits the Sun, how we know atoms and molecules exist, etc.
In a subsequent homework assignment, I have them plot events in the history of the Universe on three number lines. At the top of this exercise, I give them another out. It says, “If you won’t want to believe it, fine, you don’t have to: I don’t require belief. This is a science class: it isn’t about believing, it’s about knowing. You therefore do have to know what scientists think, and why they think what they think.”
Most of the time, I find that just staying calm and intelligently citing the evidence works pretty well. If your field is politics (and please, don’t call it “political science,” because it ain’t science) or economics (deservedly called “the dismal science”), you’re screwed.
Journalism and media can also fall prey to political questions. I count myself extremely fortunate that I can play the ignorant foreigner card and dodge the key issues where I live. Accounting for the politics in my home country, though, is often a very tricky proposition that seems to track me down about once a year...
ReplyDeleteI assume a politely aghast expression and say "Oh, I am so sorry. I don't discuss religion, politics, coffee or chocolate preferences with ****anyone****."
ReplyDeleteNot to mention an individual's reason for drinking Miller Lite. We had a Less Filling/Tastes Great brouhaha 5 years ago that some are just now getting over.
DeleteNever at work, but we do have such conversations at the church to which I belong, which has members who hail from various locations along the political spectrum (though mostly somewhere in the middle, so the Republicans I know and respect tend to come from the endangered, or at least currently less visible/audible, middle to left wing of the party -- you know, the one to which Romney once belonged). We tend to discuss issues rather than personalities, we have an additional, higher standard to invoke (the Bible in particular/ethics in general), and we rarely persuade each other, though we do end up better-informed, and less inclined to demonize those with whom we disagree, than when we started. Theoretically, this should also be doable in an academic environment (where critical thinking/attention to the complexities of a situation and of data-gathering and interpretation might provide the outside measuring stick), but I haven't seen it done, or even attempted.
ReplyDeleteYou can have a sensible discussion with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but not with someone who starts the conversation by demonstrating that their only goal is to prove you wrong. For that person the "discussion" is about winning, not an exchange of ideas.
ReplyDeleteAt work, I avoid politics in general with my colleagues, although they mostly belong to the same party as I do. At home, however, my spouse and I belong to different political parties and often have respectful and intelligent conversations. The way we do that is to establish common ground. We know we have the same values underpinning our political choices, so at least we have that in common. Then we can discuss whether or how our political stance will fulfill those values.
ReplyDeleteWhen approached by a stranger about politics, or even a colleague, I usually change the subject. If I can't, I try to move the conversation to the level of underlying values. If all they'll give me are buzzwords or talk-show talking points, then I smile sweetly, say "You have an interesting point there. I'll have to think about it when I have more time." And of course, I do: I think "what an idiot, to let a radio talk-show host do his thinking for him."
Jesus on a pony, Fab. I asked only two things back in 2010 when you asked about co-opting some old RYS. One was that you'd be responsible for feeding and cleaning up after the alapaca, and that you'd get the fucking Thirstys correct.
ReplyDeleteBig Thirsty can ONLY happen on Thursday. Friday Thirsty on Friday. I don't LIKE Weekend Thirsty, but will allow it. Sunday Thirsty HAS to be about spiritual matters. Early Thirsty is M, T, or W. I DON'T like Monday Thirsty. Twin Thirsty has to be 2 questions and CAN'T be on Thursday.
No Undergrad Thirsty, or any other type of made up fucking Thirsty.
That's it. And don't forget to shear those fucking alpaca. How else do you think you'll make those blankets for the winter?
Cut off his whiskey rations as punishment!!
DeleteYou are right, Cal! I set up the post to go up on the wrong day.
DeleteAnd about the alpaca. Uh, they're all ... dead.
Good news: Stew for the entire winter!
Perhaps a chart would help....
DeleteAnd what's with the "Apacas for Sale" ads I keep seeing in the "The Miami Student" and in "The Athens News"??
This is so timely for me - I was just having a conversation about politics with one of my colleagues, one I would consider a friend outside of work. We are generally on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we talk quite frequently about politics (especially in the midst of a presidential election season).
ReplyDeleteHow do we do it?
We act like adults.
I think it really is that simple. I don't interrupt her, and she doesn't interrupt me. We ask each other to explain our beliefs - "why do you think that?" is a common question between us (and not delivered in a sarcastic, you're an idiot kind of way). And we actually listen to each other, a skill that is really lacking in most political discussion (and most communication really). Neither of us is afraid to concede if the other has a good point (and it happens on both sides), and when one admits this the other doesn't do a victory dance. We aren't afraid to disagree or argue our points, but we refuse to engage in personal attacks. We both believe that in order to fully know and understand our own positions, we have to know the other sides as well - so we end up learning from each other. Its incredibly refreshing.
Content doesn't matter. Issue doesn't matter. You say "I'm sorry, you seem to have me confused with someone who talks about politics" and walk away.
ReplyDeleteMy family is extremely political -- half of them are elected officials, the other half work in political offices or on TV as pundits -- and they are all on the opposite side of the spectrum from me.
I do not talk politics. Ever. Otherwise I would have to push them in the pool and never talk to them again.
An alternative strategy: Pay close attention and then respond, "Yes, you're right." It's what they want to hear.
ReplyDeleteI've found that if I just agree with whatever someone opines about any sensitive topic they'll leave me alone. They don't need to know how you feel about every subject. This is the fallout from the Twitterverse. You don't need to broadcast every thought you have.
Smarter people realize that I'm just humoring them, and eventually leave me alone. Either way, problem solved.
I think it was Mark Twain who said, "Never argue with an idiot. Onlookers may not be able to tell the different parties apart."
I have very strong political opinions so I simply don't discuss politics at work, even with those with whom I agree. In addition, discussing politics was discouraged at my old job as unsuited in a professional environment and I've continued that practice.
ReplyDeleteAs a state employee in Cheeseheadland, after an extremely contentious recall election, I simply avoid talking about it, as do the rest of my colleagues. We are exhausted.
ReplyDeleteWe do have one member of my department who is all alone in his views, but he is an expat and can't vote anyway, so we just pretty much ignore him when he comes in trying to tell us all how wrong we are.
I used to share an office with a woman who wore a small marker on her lapel indicating that on a particular issue, we were exact opposites. To friends, I mused about wearing a small coat hanger on my lapel, but I decided to let it go.
ReplyDeleteIf sex, religion, and politics are out of bounds, what else is there to talk about?
ReplyDeleteThen again, everyone in my department is an atheistic, ultra-left, tree-hugging, sandal-shod, Nazi-fem, so we get along just fine.