Are we still able to talk to each other? To discuss calmly about a difficult subject that is close to our hearts? I often ask myself this question when I see people tearing their shirts on Facebook or yelling at each other on X (formerly Twitter). Or when I hear politicians, here as elsewhere, insulting each other in public. Or when I open my email box and find messages from angry readers who send me packing.
Can we talk to each other if we don’t share the same ideas? Are we on the right or the left? Nationalist or federalist? Woke or anti-woke ? Cyclist or motorist? From Montreal or Quebec? Red meat or faux-mage lover?
I know you too have noticed that the tone has gone up a few notches in recent years. You noted that we are more easily dismissed than before, and that social networks have contributed to this change in tone.
I don’t know about you, but I am increasingly looking for opportunities and places to exchange calmly.
Philosopher Daniel Weinstock has been thinking about these questions for a long time. He defines dialogue as a kind of quest.
PHOTO MARCO CAMPANOZZI, THE PRESS
Daniel Weinstock, philosopher and holder of the Katharine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy
“It requires two people, but it can also be a collective enterprise in search of a solution or common ground,” explains the holder of the Katharine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy.
But how can we achieve this when we have the impression that the only goal of an exchange is to be right?
“The dialogue can be quite vigorous,” admits the one who teaches law students at McGill University. I am not one of those who believe that “everyone is beautiful, everyone is nice”. But I believe that to achieve a dialogue, there must be respect for others. »
“In a democracy where we find lots of different points of view,” continues the philosopher, “there will not necessarily be consensus, but we will find compromises. Compromise really presupposes listening. And that allows us to build sometimes unexpected bridges. »
I really like the image of the bridge, this possibility of finding yourself halfway above the tumultuous waters of current events and ambient noise. However, it requires making a real effort, being able to hear ideas opposed to ours without retaliating like a sniper who wants to defeat the enemy.
So how do we go about bringing together the “winning conditions” that make it possible to establish a real dialogue? I asked Pierre Guillot-Hurtubise the question. In the world of communications, this man is a rare bug. Senior vice-president at National, he is one of two certified public participation professionals in Quebec. He also worked as a union negotiator. Public meetings, consultation, debate… all these places of exchange no longer hold any secrets for him.
PHOTO ROBERT SKINNER, THE PRESS
Pierre Guillot-Hurtubise, senior vice-president at National
“Respect for the point of view of others and the ability to listen are very, very important,” he insists. If you are a real estate developer, for example, and you think that those who demand social housing are left-wingers or greenies, if you demonize the point of view of others before even hearing them, you you’ll achieve nothing. »
This communications expert, who has led public sessions for new real estate projects, the reconstruction of the Turcot interchange or the post-Maple Spring education summit, always begins an exchange with this a priori: the concerns and the People’s opinions are legitimate.
“You have to be convinced of this when you interact with someone,” he believes, “otherwise, it’s theater. We must not caricature the other, we must concentrate on what unites us rather than exacerbating the small details. »
Basically, what the philosopher and the communicator tell us is that without empathy (that is to say, without the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of the other), we are condemned to the dialogue of the deaf.
Emotions in the ceiling
It seems so simple, so why is it so complicated? Véronique Grenier offers an interesting idea. The author of the essay On the verge!who has taught philosophy at the Cégep de Sherbrooke for 15 years, reminds us that we must not minimize one of the underlying aspects of dialogue: our identity is attached to the ideas that we put forward in the exchange with the other.
“When we exchange or debate with someone, it’s not just an idea that we defend, it’s who we are. It’s confronting. »
PHOTO HUGO-SÉBASTIEN AUBERT, THE PRESS
Véronique Grenier, philosophy teacher at CEGEP de Sherbrooke
And it also explains why identity issues like language and religion spark more emotional exchanges.
A debate around medical assistance in dying, which is nevertheless a question of life or death, arouses less passion than the wearing of a religious symbol, confirms Daniel Weinstock, who contributed to the national reflection on these two questions .
And what about social networks in all this? Yes, they have contributed to the polarization of exchanges and opinions. They have created echo chambers, bubbles where we find ourselves in the presence of people who think like us.
Pierre Guillot-Hurtubise, however, points out a truth that we tend to forget: when people are in the same room, they are much more calm. Hence the importance of reinvesting places of exchange that we were deprived of during the pandemic, such as cafes and meetings with family and friends.
“We spent two years each at home,” underlines Daniel Weinstock, “it’s time to meet face to face. I really believe in the idea that part of the debate must be an embodied debate, with a person in front of us, whether on a television set or in a classroom. It’s one thing to rant on social media where you can say anything, but when you have a person in front of you and you see them react to what you say, it’s something else. »
Talking to yourself can be learned
Véronique Grenier, for her part, believes that we lack the tools to better discuss. “No, social networks are not optimal for exchange, but I wonder if the violence we observe does not come with the democratization of speech. Not everyone can express themselves in writing, there is a notion of power in that. To silence the other is to force withdrawal and I fear that it will fuel anti-intellectualism. »
Touch !
We must learn to debate “better”, to dialogue rather than monologue on their own.
Good news, we recently learned that the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship course which will replace the ECR courses will teach young people to strengthen their positions and to debate better.
Daniel Weinstock is delighted. “We must develop in young people curiosity about others rather than fear. When you say to someone “explain to me”, it can open your horizons. A posture that is not blissful acceptance or closure. For me, that’s the challenge. »
And to meet this challenge, we sometimes have to put our certainties aside. Get out of our secure circle. Create spaces where each person’s voice is welcomed.
The health of our democracy depends on it.