As Theresa May’s deal emits its last gasp, Remainers and Leavers continue their bitter war of words, fuelled by the media – “Brexit Party finances get shake-down” for some is “Attack on Farage is Affront to Democracy” for others. Corbyn’s appeal to both sides of the divide has failed as voters retreat into their corners. But even within the Remainer camp, tribal allegiances and resentments are running high, facilitated by social media. The complicated voting mechanics of the European Elections have led some to react angrily to suggestions of tactical voting, intended (it’s argued) to maximise Remain candidate chances.

The country is at an impasse. Life feels fraught and judgement is everywhere. Those with different views seem to be talking past each other and common ground has never appeared further away. A great example of this was John Humphrys’ recent interview of Green MP Caroline Lucas, during which he doggedly and repeatedly ignored her case for Remain as necessary for climate action. He simply wasn’t listening. We are seeing a vicious circle in which argumentative attacks make us cling ever more desperately to our tribes. This “fetish of assertion” [1] makes losers of us all.

Is there any way out? Whilst the immediate future may seem to offer little hope, there are ways of approaching disagreement and conflict that could help us all benefit, as individuals and society. In his book “Together – The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation”, sociologist Richard Sennett makes a strong case for what he calls the “dialogic” approach [2]. Rather than seeking to find – or convince others of – THE right answer, or attempting to find common ground, a dialogic approach is about listening and understanding different perspectives. Through appreciating a diversity of views, we acknowledge complexity and gain a richer insight into the issues. According to Sennett, a dialogic approach includes “listening well, behaving tactfully, finding points of agreement and managing disagreement, or avoiding frustration in a difficult discussion.” [3] He goes on to argue, “[t]he social engine is oiled when people do not behave too emphatically.” [4] In other words, a dialogic approach does not seek to dominate, but values difference and fosters cooperation.

That’s all very well, but how will this help us move forward and find solutions? While a dialogic mindset is about understanding rather than solutions, its practical value can lie in creating the foundation for finding common ground. Once we understand and accept different views, we are more likely to see not only possible compromises, but solutions that address underlying interests. In this way, for example, interest-based approaches to political or business negotiations can prove much more fruitful than more traditional, adversarial approaches (cp Brexit!). Disagreements need not be threatening, but can instead provide opportunities for greater self-awareness, growth and creativity. Or as philosopher and political scientist Leszek Koczanowicz puts it, “[d]ialogue is a value in itself, but it allows us to order social life and protects it from falling into the monopoly of one group or into the chaos of fragmented voices.”

The idea of using dialogue and deliberation to bring together different views on complex issues is being embraced and promoted by an increasing interest in citizens’ assemblies and citizens’ juries, used successfully, for example, to chart a way ahead on Ireland’s abortion laws. These assemblies involve selecting a group of representative citizens and getting them to meet with experts, interrogate evidence, discuss particular issues and identify possible solutions, thereby providing policy and decision makers with a mandate to take action. One local example is Oxford, which, propelled by its recent Climate Emergency declaration, is preparing to hold a citizens’ assembly to discuss climate action in the autumn.

All of which gives us hope. If we want to bridge divides, we could start to listen and embrace difference. We could discard our fetish of assertion, starting in our daily lives, while we continue to build the case for more citizens’ assemblies. Instead of seeking to win, we could seek to understand and empathise.

Notes

(1) Coined by philosopher Bernard Williams, as described by Sociologist Richard Sennett in “Together – The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation” (2012). London: Allen Lane.

(2) Based on the concept developed by Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin.

(3) Sennett (2012), p.6.

(4) Sennett (2012), p.23,