Revisiting civil discourse
Talking across the divide in 2026
This article is a rewriting of one I wrote in May 2024, prompted partly by listening to Laura Tingle (ABC 7.30), present the John Button Oration on uncivil discourse. The recent fracturing of social cohesion makes it worthwhile revisiting.
The rapid increase in misinformation, the decline of trusted news sources and the grasping at simplistic solutions by populist politicians and communicators all point to an urgent need to manage our discourse. As members of a community organisation with a mission to promote a ‘connected, safe and supportive community,’ it is crucial we don’t fall into the trap of trying to hammer others with our point of view.
Our individual communications have an impact. Learning how to talk with friends, family and other community members helps shape the kind of community we want to live in. If we are to be serious advocates on the issues that matter to us, it is crucial that we are able to talk constructively with those who hold different views from us.
How can we have a productive conversation with someone when we disagree with their point of view? Is it possible to talk across the divide when civil discourse – respectful discussion – is no longer the norm?
As members of Sustainable Macleod, we can be expected to have strong views on the critical sustainable issues, from climate change to biodiversity, from social equity to sustainable transport and more. We not only have our views, we also advocate for them and attempt to influence public opinion and policy. Our formal Rules, which govern the organisation, have as the first Purpose: ‘To advocate for the adoption of a sustainable vision in and practices for Macleod and the wider community.’
Previously Sustainable Macleod has taken public positions on issues including the North East Link, urban food strategy and parking meters in Macleod, as well as promoting clean energy through the Clean Energy Expo last year.
In the process of advocating for issues, we will inevitably bump up against members of our community who hold different, often opposing, points of view on these issues. If we are to win these people over to our position, persuade decision-makers to make sustainable decisions and encourage a cohesive community, we need to consider how we go about our advocacy.
It can help us to know that genuine engagement starts with the recognition that on many issues, we will have common ground with our opponents. We all share the fundamental concerns of life. We all want the best for ourselves and our families and the community we live in. The problems come when we have opposing ways of achieving these ends.
As an example, take someone advocating the replacement of fossil fuels with clean energy. This might well come from a concern for their children’s future. Someone arguing for continuation – or expansion – of fossil fuel use, might be equally concerned by the possibility that there won’t be reliable employment for themselves and their children. Each of these positions is centred on a legitimate fear and deserves to be heard.
Our discussions will go far better if we prioritise listening over speaking. The tendency when we encounter an opposing view, is to state our position more emphatically. It doesn’t take long for each of us to become antagonists. If we take the time to simply listen and take in the other person’s ideas without judgement, the other person will be more willing to hear what we have to say. It is a truism that the best way to be heard is to listen.
Managing our emotional reactions when faced with an opposing view can be challenging, but it is essential in a serious discussion. The rules around formal meetings are largely designed to counter the natural tendency to react emotionally on some issues. Knowing our emotional trigger points and doing our best to contain our reactions is critical in maintaining a civil discussion.
Approaching a difficult conversation with genuine curiosity about the other person’s views can help us listen without judging. Curiosity is the key tool for therapists and encourages us to seek understanding rather than conflict.
In our role as advocates, training ourselves to be open to hearing the opposing view can lead to a stronger grasp of our own position and makes us better advocates for that position. Understanding, for example, the fear a coal worker in the Hunter Valley might have about loss of his job and income with the closing of a coal mine, can help us better advocate for the increasing use of renewables.
Shouting across the divide is unlikely to help us get our point across in a meaningful way. Serious advocacy can only be effective if we encourage respectful discussion. Our community will be a more connected, resilient and ultimately sustainable one if we do.
Paul Gale-Baker