By Michelle A. McLemore
“War is Peace” is one of the three slogans in 1984 by George Orwell. The antithetical idea has long been utilized by governments around the world. The essence: people unite against a common foreign enemy. However, what to do when no one else in the world will play war? Or if there is no perceivable direct threat to one’s country? The next step is to divide within to control the masses. How best to create division? Step 1, create a threat. Step 2, blame a group by using generalities to incite fear. Step 3, discourage rational discussion and critical thinking.
Remember Benjamin from Animal Farm? “Donkeys live a long time” was his mantra because he observed, but kept his mouth shut—neither agreeing nor disagreeing. He kept his head down while the pigs and horses and sheep were stirred up and manipulated. Sheep mindlessly repeated whatever they were taught. Horses worked hard, blindly trusting the leader/owner. The pigs presumed they were superior and manipulated the others first by pretending they believed all were equal and equally abused, then later subjugating the other animals after weakening them emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Which do you identify with the most in the last few years?
For twenty years as a psychology and English teacher, I taught high school students to use a variety of strategies in their writing and speech to get their points across. But more importantly, I guided them to listen, respond, question, ask for clarification, use specific, respectably sourced evidence, and try to put themselves in an opponent’s mind to thoroughly understand different viewpoints on the same situation. The goal wasn’t simply to persuade someone to their side. It was to dissect the onion—whatever the layered topic the students chose for the week. To ensure—based on the information available at that time—that they could feel justified and confident in their stance. That required playing Devil’s advocate and occasionally questioning handed-down family or religious beliefs.
On Fridays we would hold an in-class round table discussion, entirely student-led. No shouting. No name calling. No “because that’s just what I believe” answers were allowed. Everyone had to participate at least twice. Sometimes, by the end, students’ original positions changed. Sometimes they slid to uncertainty with the need to explore and ponder more. Sometimes they were validated and reinforced. Regardless, students collectively worked toward inviting everyone to the discussion with respect and patience.
Occasionally, they had the uncomfortable realization that they were not able to defend a long-held belief or position. They learned that complex situations, sometimes, do not result in complete agreement and they would have to agree to disagree for a while. They learned it was possible to do so without having to break up long-term friendships because truly no one wished harm to anyone else.
Former student Breanna Blankenship shared this memory recently: “That was my favorite part of that class! I always felt like I could speak up and not be judged. I remember myself and another classmate feeling so strongly about our opposing views and I walked out questioning everything because you HAD to listen to everything everyone said.”
Another former student, Rylee Clairday, 2024 Miss Washtenaw County, also recalled the experience fondly. Clairday commented, “I believe these discussions helped students consider that common debates are rarely black and white, but rather a gray area that requires critical thinking. I am grateful for these discussions and only wish more people were willing to engage in difficult conversations with the decorum and respect you facilitated in your class.”
If teenagers can have heart-focused, respectful, difficult discussions, then adults have no excuse.
Consider: have you blocked, snoozed, or unfriended anyone on social media in the last four years? Have you broken off communication with family or long-term friends due to differences in opinions despite them having demonstrated support for you in the past? Have you used name calling when frustrated recently? Or have you been on the receiving end of any such treatment? Then perhaps you could benefit from exploring some listening and discussion strategies.
Psychologist Carl Rogers encouraged a humanistic approach to conflict. He advocated reflective listening to enable understanding and share insights. This required accepting three basic tenets:
As humans, both sides, or parties involved are equal in status or position.
We should have unconditional positive regard or respect for another’s general well-being.
It is important to show empathy and understanding to other’s struggles and sensitivities. To do so does not mean you agree with how they view life; it means you acknowledge and hold space for their struggles.
Active Listening, also known as Reflective Listening, can be used to…
Diffuse anger, fear, or feelings of loss of control by helping the speaker vent
Gain understanding of the speaker’s values, motivations, or views
Help people solve their own problems (and build their self-confidence)
Acknowledge the worth of an individual (show respect and nurture their self-worth)
Build relationships (increase trust and empathy)
When a conflict arises with someone you care about, consider asking for a time to talk—a time when neither of you are hungry, tired, or behind on a deadline. A time you can both choose to focus on being present with each other to honor each other for increased understanding. Most of these suggestions can be used for both in-person situations as well as asynchronous communication on social-media.
When you are listening:
Don’t presume that just because someone has a different opinion means they are stupid, mean, unfeeling, or evil.
Allow wait time. Sometimes the speaker needs to know you’ll be patient and wait until he/she is ready to disclose more. Some people think slower and need time to articulate.
Strive to understand the situation from other’s perspective.
Admit if you get lost or something is unclear. Apologize and ask for more information.
Actively THINK about effects of what they are describing/remembering/anticipating from their view.
Paraphrase what you are hearing to help the person focus and clarify his/her own thoughts. Example, “So you are saying, ‘….?’”
Help the speaker focus on identifying his/her/their feelings, beliefs, values, and rationale. This may help them identify where they have incongruity or illogical ideas.
Be empathetic when you can. “That must feel X,Y, or Z.” (This helps the speaker clarify or revise their thinking and for you both to understand the driving emotions.)
Trust that growth can come out of the speaker working through the thought process.
Practice a pause before reacting to someone’s position that differs from yours.
Ask what examples, sources, or reasons someone believes as they do.
Don’t use sarcasm or make jokes to lighten the mood. That can make the other person feel you are dismissing their feelings or concerns.
Don’t smother a concern by saying, “It’s not that big of a deal. It’ll all get better” or “The chances are minimal.” This demeans the person’s feelings. To him/her/them, it is a significant concern. In your response/sharing time, you can share what statistics or facts you have read/heard to help decrease panic about potentiality of situations.
Don’t interrupt.
Don’t reflect with questions that may be answered with a yes or a no. Keep your reflections open-ended as much as possible.
If you feel something said is a non-sequitur, red herring, circular reasoning, or avoiding a question, go slow. Don’t attack. Remember many people are products of years of poor discussion examples in dysfunctional families, gas-lighting personal relationships, power-hungry business situations, and lack of self-worth. Consider your parents’ conflict-resolution styles. Were they healthy and effective? Are you emulating them when you feel attacked, cornered, or perceive you are “losing” a discussion?
When you are sharing your position…
Be concise in your position on the current issue; Don’t bring up an entire history of perceived faults or wrongs.
Acknowledge any part of the conflict you are responsible for or have been a party to.
Be honest and realistic about the minimum you need for resolution and moving forward.
Don’t shout, name-call, exaggerate, or use generalizations. (If writing, avoid bold-font and exclamation marks.) Those almost always guarantee that the other person will stop listening to you and any valid rationale you might’ve shared.
Don’t lead with judgement. You might antagonize the person if he/she isn’t ready to accept ownership of the problem. Instead of saying, “You’re a control-freak,” focus on a specific, tangible behavior you’d like modified. “As I do most of the cooking and clean up, help me understand why it causes you stress that I put the dishes away where, and how, I want to.”
Don’t criticize or attack personally.
Don’t talk down to the speaker as if you are smarter, wiser, or more experienced. Your amount of experience seems irrelevant when someone else is working through emotions.
Try to explain your thought in a variety of ways for different types of learners. (i.e. metaphors, imagery, similes, statistics, facts, cause & effects, real life examples, and realistic hypothetical situations)
Avoid the words always and never.
Can you make a concession? Is any part of an opponent’s argument logical or concerning? Acknowledge it. Then, what is an angle, however, that they may have missed regarding that area?
Acknowledge when you have a thought which is emotional (especially fear-based) instead of evidence-based. You can make concessions regarding your own arguments. It doesn’t weaken or invalidate your feelings. It maturely acknowledges something that is influencing you.
If at any point in a discussion, or friendly debate, you feel overwhelmed, ask the other person for a time-out to process the information exchanged. Being overwhelmed can cause people to regress to defense-mode. That’s when the psyche tries to quickly bring things to an end for emotional survival and things that don’t advance a discussion occur—things like name calling, exaggerations, bringing up past misunderstandings or hurts. Basically, throwing everything in the kitchen (sometimes including the kitchen sink) at your opponent which stops the two-way conversation, sometimes permanently.
It is human nature to defend oneself when feeling countered. However, just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean you are being attacked. Likewise, just because you don’t like what someone says, does not mean they actually insulted you.
Inferring an insult where one wasn’t stated has ruined many relationships since Covid and during the last three presidential terms. If you follow up an imagined insult with abrupt ghosting or refusal to talk things out, then you are using misplaced indignance to cover up fictionalizing other people’s motivation. It isn’t healthy, nor useful, in the long run. Life is truly fleeting. And we can be enriched through the talents and views of diverse friends, family, and community.
Growing up, and growing wiser, should be about evaluating our thoughts and beliefs and revising them when new information is learned. No one should have to become “Benjamins” because friends, co-workers, or family is aggressively slanderous, shouts others down into submission, or shames anyone who disagrees with them. Silence is not agreement. Silence, sometimes, is caused when you believe the other person is not open to hear or consider another point of view. And when we no longer work to listen and discuss respectfully, it makes us all losers in this war for humanity, equality, equity, and the common good.
Michelle McLemore is a freelance writer, energy practitioner, and stress management guide. Her background as a psychology and writing teacher supports personalizing client self-care to boost balance and vitality. She hosts workshops a few times a year. Learn more at michellemclemore.com or facebook.com/MichelleMcLemoreHealingGuide. Contact her at energy@michellemclemore.com.
