By Paul Mojzes, Ph.D., D.D.(Honorary)
Human beings are competitive; some more, some less. Some of it may be innate; some of it is learned. We compete in athletics, for jobs, for property and it can take place between siblings, friends, and rivals. In school, for scarce resources, for attention, for social status—in pretty much all areas of life, societies and individuals compete. In this election year, we are particularly aware of political competition, some of which is at expected levels, some of which is in new, uncharted, perverse territory.
Debate is perhaps the most frequently regulated form of verbal competition. The aim of debaters is not so much to shed light on problems in order to resolve them, but to win. A lot of planning goes into a debate. We study the opponents, not to truly get to know them but to figure out their strengths and weaknesses so that we can use them to our benefit, namely, to trip them up and make them look bad while maximizing our advantages. In a debate, we speak more to our own constituents and aim to convince the undecided and we do not feel responsible for the hurt feelings of our adversaries. Often, we deliberately seek to undermine and ridicule them.
The role of listening to the other side is primarily to detect weaknesses which we can pounce on. One-liners and clever put-downs – ridiculing the position of the rival is cherished. Sticking to our previously established position is valued; changing our position as a result of the views expressed by the opponent is interpreted as a concession or a sign of weakness. A hidden agenda in order to undermine the opponent is an oft-used approach. Fair play is not always required; tactical manoeuvres and “low blows” are acceptable. In recent presidential debates, new lows in public vulgarities and personal insults and ridicule have become routine; a fairly large number of the public not only accept them but seem to demand them. Performance and brazen lies dominate the stage. Gradually, we are demanding gladiator-type games, and some in the audience literally call for blood or engage in violence stimulated by a candidate. This is but a partial list of characteristics of debates.
I have watched most presidential debates since the Kennedy-Nixon debate. Nearly always, I felt that the candidate whom I favor had won the debate and I got irritated when the followers of the other candidate felt that their “loser” had won. Some of the debates shed some light on issues but mostly I hoped for blunders by the other candidate which would minimize the “rare” mistakes my candidate made. I didn’t wish for merely a slight advantage to my candidate; I wished for the demolition of the opposing candidate.
Does the way pundits and others analyse the debate help me decide who will be the better office holder? No. They say that short, clever, memorable, possibly sarcastic lines are much better than carefully thought-out and formulated explanations. Their advice: by all means, avoid being professorial (that’s a cardinal sin!). It is said that the audience cannot pay attention beyond the first 20-30 minutes. Being dramatic, having a stage presence, being entertaining, speaking over the other person is more important than listening, thoughtful analysis, and sober decision making. Yet, presumably, once the person is in office, it is the latter characteristics that will be needed. The debates are the kind of job interview where the characteristics not needed for the job get priority. Is it a surprise that so often we do not get the right person for the office?
Is there an alternative? Perhaps not, given the requirement in a democracy that there be a contest of political parties and candidates for office. It could well be the best system no matter how flawed the process is.
But we humans have another ingrained or nurtured characteristic, which is to cooperate, to wish to understand and be understood, to empathize, and to care. These are not as publicly demonstrable as competition (there is no Super Bowl in empathy for our neighbor’s distress). But, fortunately, this approach is gaining traction.
In the last 50 to 100 years, a new alternative to contestation and debate has emerged: dialogue. The word is old and used to have a somewhat different meaning in antiquity. We often give the word too broad a meaning. When two heads of state meet, even when they are in a fairly conflictual situation, the press labels their encounter as dialogue, when more accurately they were probably engaged in negotiations, debates, and perhaps trying to outmanoeuvre one another.
Dialogue is the process of individuals or groups meeting in order to respectfully listen to each other, to get insights from one another which they probably could not have gotten on their own. Learning about “the other” from “the other” certainly goes beyond what we have heard second- hand about them or gained by superficial observation from the outside. Why do we need dialogue? We need it to jointly resolve common challenges in the world around us and issues that may cloud our mutual relationships. New information may surface which helps us to gain a broader understanding and appreciation of the world around us. In recent years, many have developed guidelines, commandments, rules (the do’s and don’ts) to make dialogue more effective. This blog is not the place to list them or explain them; my intention is to entice prospective students to enroll in my course “Dialogue Among Religions.”
Until recently, one would have guessed that religions are least likely to engage in dialogue when each claims to be in possession of the absolute truth. But what seemed “impossible” throughout the centuries until recently has become possible. THE WORLD OF RELIGIONS HAS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED. The purpose of my “Dialogue Among Religions” course is to jointly explore some of the profound new approaches in the relationship between religions and even between religious people and atheists. I invite you to explore this relatively new phenomenon together in this course at Jupiter LLS beginning Monday, October 10, 2016.
0
0
0
