This Q&A offers strategies for discussing political issues with friends and family while minimizing tension. By keeping a few key points in mind, these conversations can remain productive and may even enhance mutual understanding.
Question: Many people have someone in their lives who they feel close to but who has a different viewpoint when it comes to politics. How can someone engage in a political discussion with someone with a different point of view, causing as little strain on the relationship as possible?
Amy Pason: First and foremost, we have to prepare ourselves and take a bit of time to reflect before starting the conversation. Recognize that the relationship is important. Recognize that the person you are engaging with is a human being, just like ourselves, and that they are deserving of respect. Especially when talking with friends and family, it is important to prioritize that you want to maintain the relationship after the conversation.
In reflecting, recognize that everyone comes to a political position or point of view because of their experiences, knowledge, how they were raised, how they grew up, what religion they are, and other influences from social groups. All of those factors influence political choices and decisions. Often, evaluating someone’s political position isn’t about assessing right and wrong – it’s about understanding that there are different lenses through which we see and experience the world.
Reflecting on your own experiences and how those influenced your beliefs can help you understand that each person may have gone through foundational experiences that have led them to theirs. Think back to the first issues you cared about. What led you to care about it? Why is this an issue you want to discuss with others? If you start to identify those in yourself, you can also understand that whoever you are talking with also has a story or a why that led them to their current beliefs. Ask them those same questions.
When you are ready to engage, try to be open-ended with your initial approach. Instead of picking an issue and asking them to defend it, ask them a question like “What is an issue you care about? What experiences led you to care about it?”
Keep in mind that politics is an expression of identity and often a core part of a person’s identity. So when we talk about politics, we are expressing beliefs, values and what’s important to us. Think about these discussions as a way to get to understand a person first, then you can engage more with the particular policies that might arise in the discussion.
Also, while we often focus on national issues, local issues may be of more import to those you are engaging with. Having a conversation about the local issues may be less contentious than major issues like the presidential election and they may have more impact on your day-to-day lives. It will likely be easier to bridge the divide.
Question: What advice do you have for someone who feels pressure to engage in political conversations but finds them emotionally draining?
Amy Pason: Often, when we think about political discussions, it’s not an actual conversation in person with a friend or family member. It’s often things we see in social media or headlines from the news. We see people sharing memes or doing a hot take. Social media tends to be emotive and impulsive. We share things we might not ever say in person, and encouraging emotion is how social media keeps us engaged—often through amplifying negative emotion. We’re more apt to share content that involves finger pointing, contempt, or that makes us feel superior. When it comes to political talk, its best to stay away from social media.
If someone you know well starts to engage with you via social media, instead of keeping the conversation there, try to meet up in person over a cup of coffee or a shared meal. In person, you are more apt to seek to understand their point of view instead of looking for the quick reaction. If someone you don’t know is trying to engage with you on social media, often it is best not to engage back. Spend your energy in social spaces where people are wanting to discuss rather than attack or react.
When you do engage with others, be clear about your purpose or intention with the conversation. Rather than look to persuade or convert the other person, think about looking to learn more about the person you care about.
You want to know, and to share, why you each believe what you do. Discuss the “why” and share your beliefs and any misgivings you may have about the issue. Discuss the potential downsides of what you believe, and discuss who may be negatively affected by the issue. That way, it’s a method of growing the relationship, growing your understanding of the issue, and a way to reflect on one’s own beliefs.
Listening, rather than hearing, is a skill we all need to work on more. Take the time to listen, hear what the person is saying, and confirm if you understand it.
Paraphrasing is another skill that will help with conversations that are about understanding one another better, rather than trying to convince one another of anything. Practice paraphrasing. Say things like “It sounds like you are in favor of XYZ because of this reason, is that right?”
Being clear about your intention in the discussion, creating ground rules, and thinking critically about the issues and your own beliefs can help get rid of some of the emotional drain these topics can have and help make the conversations more productive.
Question: How can you make sure the conversations you have around politics are done mindfully?
Amy Pason: Make sure it’s a good time to even have the conversation. If a person you care about is reposting things on social media that are hurtful or divisive, they may not be in a great headspace. If you want to engage with them, make sure you do so when you aren’t in a highly emotional state yourself and ask them if they’re ready to have a conversation with you about the issues. It’s OK to disengage when things are too heated.
Also, choose your words carefully. The language we use can either de-escalate things or create a more combative atmosphere.
In communication studies literature, we talk about having supportive communication versus defensive communication. Oftentimes when we are trying to defend our side, we talk in evaluative terms: “You don’t understand this. You’re wrong. That is a terrible idea.” Or we talk in controlling terms: “I’m right. You should think like I do because it’s the best way.” These types of language choices put the other person into a defensive stance and often instead of listening, they’re going to start to defend their positions and assert their superiority in their position. That type of conversation is infrequently productive. Instead of being evaluative, try to be more descriptive: “I’ve read about this issue, and this is why I’m in favor. I have questions about this, and here is what I’d like to know from you.” Being descriptive can help shift the tone to understanding rather than defending.
So, when approaching political conversations, reflect on your own “why” first. Evaluate the other side and the downsides to your position. Ask the other person if they are open to a conversation in person. Keep your word choice in mind and try to listen, hear and paraphrase to grow understanding. Focus on local issues, and try to stay off of social media.
ΒιΆΉΣ³» Amy Pason
Amy Pason (Ph.D., University of Minnesota) is an associate professor of Communication Studies in the College of Liberal Arts at the ΒιΆΉΣ³», specializing in rhetoric. Professor Pason has been at the University since 2010, and practices inclusive and participatory leadership in her various university roles, recently as Chair of the Faculty Diversity Committee and numerous department committees. She has taught a wide variety of courses (undergraduate and graduate) and regularly engages with interdisciplinary collaborators through her research and in serving on graduate student committees.
Professor Pason’s research and teaching centers on multiple facets of democracy in the U.S., especially in the ways that we can foster and support democratic culture. She has explored advocacy strategies of activists, intersections of the First Amendment and protest, and public deliberation of legislation. She is interested in the ways that publics are invited to or restrained from engaging in democratic governance, and works to foster skills in students to deliberate and understand how to engage across differences to solve society’s “wicked problems” through organizing the Wolfpack Community Howl deliberative discussion events. She is currently developing research to understand how negative political rhetoric and incivility by elected officials undermines political participation thinking through the concept of dignity.
