How to host a difficult conversation?

As a long-time vegetarian and recent vegan, I wold very much like to engage in a productive dialogue with my omnivorous friends and family and engage in a conversating around that point of difference, butI know  I sometimes struggle to bridge the gap. There exists a stereotypical image of the angry vegan, the person who preaches their beliefs ad nauseaum from a holier than thou antagonatory place–which has led to a game of sorts called "spot the vegan." Basically, any time someone puts something controversial related to animals/consumption in a public forum, folks wait for the vegan to show up on their high horse and yell down at the barbaric consumers of dead annimal flesh and how what they are doing is the worst thing ever and being vegan is so much better and everyone should stop eating meat because it's the right thing to do and...

I personally do what I can to avoid falling into that pattern and would like to believe I do a reasonably alright job of it, and I can't help but feel I sometimes get a little preachy, especially when I feel like my way of life is under attack or intense scrutiny by someone coming from a point of opposition. I don't want to be Elizabeth, the one who immediately rushes into her own discourse without leaving space for others to share their opinions because I feel nothing productive or meaningful can come from such a dialogue (or lack thereof). Communicating from a place of anger can be effective in that anger can inspire passion and serve as a driving force behind continued efforts to try and speak even in the face of heavy opposition, and that anger can also silence all other voices outside of oneself. For a dialogue to happen, all parties need and deserve space to explain their point of view–which means people need to take a step back and allow others to speak. And besides, maybe then people will lose interest in trying to get a rise out of the vegan for their game of internet bingo.

This topic of having productive conversations with individuals who have differing perspectives reminded me of talking to my grandparents' who lie on the much more conservative end of the political spectrum. My grandfather, who has Rush Limbaugh playing on several TVs throughout his house is difficult to converse with--political conversations quickly escalate into heated debates. Our political differences (and the experiences that led us to hold them) are so vastly different that it can be difficult to feel like they are at all productive. I do somewhat agree with what Kelsey said--that meaningful change really happens at a systematic, group level--but I also think there is something to be said for engaging with someone who has a different opinion than you. While neither of the parties may fully change their minds, they may become more aware of the range of thoughts and ideas out there and perhaps eventually become more porous to them. It is also important to acknowledge the value of what people have to say, even if it may seem abrasive and extreme at the surface. It is ultimately up to us though as to how porous we become to ideas, thoughts, and positions that seem foreign or much different than our own. 

I’m wondering if in the dialogue we’ve had about climate change (and science in general) I’ve actually not been allowing enough latitude—if my biases towards the “factual” science-based thought system are actually inhibiting me from being porous enough to consider other representations. But like Jo ponders below,  “perhaps a climate graph and a heart monitor have some interesting things to say about each other, perhaps we can draw conclusions about the ways they both perpetually change or something, but maybe, just maybe, there is nothing worth while in the similarity of shape.” I suppose I’m all for using other images and ideas to make “facts” more approachable and facilitate personal connections to the “facts,” because after all, if we can’t connect to the hockey stick graph at all, is it really able to inspire change? Or does it just factually show a trend? For me, that difference is where I draw the line—if we only use these metaphors to express concepts without also being transparent with the concepts themselves, a huge part of the dialogue is lost. We can’t discuss how the climate is changing…without knowing the climate is changing. But maybe we can’t take action on the changing climate without using metaphors to personally connect with the issue. Both seem important, in my mind. 

Thinking about this question, I immediately feel conflicted.  On one hand, I believe in the importance of dialogue, of talking with people with different experiences and views to expand one's horizons and challenge the single stories that we too often hold in our heads.  But, on the other hand, the expectation that people are required to enter into "productive dialogue" with those who disagree with them, and that a fundamental part of that "productive dialogue" is politeness and respecting others' views even if you disagree, is often an oppressive construct.  Many groups of marginalized people are too often expected to engage in productive dialogue or debate with people whose views are harmful to them, who doubt their humanity or whether they deserve rights, and if those marginalized people ever get upset or refuse to engage in dialogue they are labeled as "angry" and "extremist" and are blamed for their own oppression, because they aren't being polite or respectful.  In circumstances like this, dialogue serves to support the existing power structure, to define the ways in which interactions should occur according to the status quo and force marginalized people into interactions that are fundamentally harmful to them.

 At the end of the day, how much does dialogue really accomplish?  The Lives of Animals would seem to suggest not much- no one's mind is visibly changed by Elizabeth Costello's words, and her attempts at speaking only seem to drive wedges between her and everyone else.  One could debate, and rightfully so, whether what Elizabeth engages in is actually dialogue, or productive dialogue, but that's not really what I want to get into.  Rather, while dialogue can be important and powerful, I think that often times we place too much emphasis on it, because we place too much emphasis on individuals and on changing individual minds.  Individuals are not the source of social inequalities; systems are.  And while systems are shaped by individuals and can be changed by them, systems are more than the individuals within them and will not change if we only engage in dialogue to change individual minds.  The systemic change required is on the group level, the community organizing level, the policy and institutional level.  And while dialogue can help create a culture where such systemic transformation is possible, if all we do is talk to individuals, nothing meaningful is ever going to change.