What we can learn from academia on hosting healthy dialogues around opposing ideas instead of stamping them out.
If you’ve never heard of the “Harkness method” before, here’s your chance to learn more about a piece of classroom history that has fueled an abundance of educational discussions since the 1930s.
Back in high school, the curriculum that I was enrolled in employed this style of learning in our Humanities class, which involved a group of around twelve students facilitating debates over specific topics that could range from role-playing Greek philosophers to argue about what constitutes a just society to dissections of a Civil War-era work of literature.
There were rarely any bounds towards what could and could not be spoken during this allotted portion of time for intellectual exchanges, since teachers were meant to limit their intervention while students exercised their wide array of opinions.
The success of the Harkness method lay in its simple arrangement of open conversation without interjection from participating members — it provided students from different backgrounds the opportunity to speak their mind and rationalize points that were shared by their classmates, given that their level of confidence permitted them to do so.
“Harkness is sometimes narrowly misunderstood as a technique for teaching, which takes the approach out of context. It needs to be understood in the broad frame of cultural reform of an institution — it is a useful symbol for a community committed to student discourse and problem solving.” — Guy J. Williams, Professor of Philosophy & Religion at Wellington College
As teenagers, we were challenged to think on our feet and hone our oratorical skills in a room where the potential to be judged, outnumbered or sometimes, offended, presented as an obstacle to be overcome as part of one’s learning path as opposed to one that limited the freedom of thought and speech out of concern that an audience might vilify them for not complying with the rules of what is deemed “socially acceptable”.
These days, the lines of what constitutes as “socially acceptable” are blurred beyond comprehension, and the protection given to students and members of the larger community outside of academic institutions altogether has rendered the freedom of expression a risky endeavor, at the behest of someone getting “triggered” and accusing others of being “insensitive” or “tone-deaf” for their incompatible beliefs on a certain issue.
Cancel culture, in effect, has deemed the tenets of the Harkness method inapplicable both in and outside of the confines of school campuses. While hate speech is arguably a form of violent incitement (and a completely different case for legal inspection), we need to accept that not everybody is going to have the same views as we do, and in effect, consider how to foster practices that are both respectful to others and conducive to expanding on what we already know when conversing with them.
Imagine being embroiled in a debate with a friend or family member about something polarizing such as access to women’s healthcare, for example. They’re rattling off on their controversial standpoints, and you’re tempted to tell them “you’re wrong”, or “you need to stop right now”.
That’s completely natural, after all. It is normal for defensiveness to arise as a common reaction in the midst of frustrating moments.
Instead of retaliating in response to a disagreement, we can choose to maintain our composure and question the “why” behind the speaker’s mode of thinking by incorporating the following processes when responding.
1. “Can you elaborate on why you think that way?”
Possibly the single, most effective line that you can use when the opposition has finished speaking. This opens up the channel towards introspection for both parties, and in effect, allows us to gain insight into why the other person harbors the beliefs that they do.
Maybe it has to do with a reason that is related towards their upbringing, or their insufficient exposure towards an ideology. Whatever the cause might be, there is an element of courtesy that comes with letting someone know that you appreciate their words enough to prolong the conversation, even if you don’t entirely agree with them.
2. “I respect what you said, and I hope that you will respect my outlook on this as well.”
There is a chapter in ‘The Catalyst’ by Jonah Berger which taps into how our need to change minds often backfires because of our tendency to saturate people with information when they detract from our values. The same author of the acclaimed title, ‘The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck’, postulates that we’re accustomed to seeking out information that interpreting it in a way that settles comfortably with the way in which we think.
Which absolutely makes sense — assuming you supported the pro-choice stance in the fictional argument stated earlier, would you change your mind about defunding Planned Parenthood if someone inundated you with their reasons about why you should support the pro-life movement? Probably not.
Again, you don’t always have to see eye-to-eye with people. You can express your gratitude for their time by mentioning that you‘re glad to have listened to their thoughts on the topic, but that you have your own views that you are confident in.
3. “I’m sorry if our discussion started getting heated earlier, this is an issue that I passionately believe in.”
Assuming that the conversation was not taking place as part of a debate tournament, there is no harm in extending a sincere apology if you feel (or know) that your tone became more aggressive, or that you lashed out at your peer as tensions were rising.
Unpleasant discussions will happen — not just in the classroom, but at family gatherings, in group chats with close friends, in the office, or even when meeting new acquaintances for the first time. You can be firm in all of these situations, but also vulnerable enough to be aware of how you are controlling your emotions when you feel that your personal beliefs are being attacked.
It is important to keep in mind that some people may not stoking your anger intentionally with their words, but speaking genuinely from experience and with just as much fervor as yourself. If they are not a relative or a close friend, and you don’t have any obligations towards them outside of that conversation, the choice to continue associating with them is a decision that you get to make.
The bottom line is, it doesn’t serve well to deliver on unnecessary verbal assaults just because someone isn’t on the same page as you are.
While the principles underlying the Harkness method may not assimilate with all settings or cultural environments, our ability to communicate with maturity and composure has its merits, whether or not we align with the words of the people we are interacting with.
It is now, in this current climate, that curiosity and openness need to be reintroduced to replace the stigma of intolerance that has risen in recent years.
Our educational system has strived so hard to instill those qualities in us , especially for those of us coming from liberal arts backgrounds—if we can’t prevent the purveyors of cancel culture from trying to suppress them, the least we can do is to convey ourselves with a modicum of self-control.
