The Archive of Free Thinking

“A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don’t have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed.”

Nelson Mandela

---

The development and maintenance of societies depends on bringing together individuals with differing skills, values, and ideas to create environments where they can coexist and thrive. Central in this process is the ability to debate, to share thoughts, to challenge and to create agreement. This edition explores debate, both its ineffective and effective forms. In particular, the importance of ‘closeness’: direct contact, empathy and immersion, in creating constructive dialogues.

As suggested by Mandela’s statement, there are multiple different ways one can engage in a debate, and to different ends. There is ‘effective debate’ that Mandela classifies as bringing the two sides ‘closer’ together, making them ‘stronger’. Alternatively, Mandela defines ‘Ineffective debate’ as communication conducted with ‘arrogance, superficiality’ and a lack of information. This form of debate is pervasive in contemporary discourse, and is unproductive. A ‘good leader’ understands that productive debate must involve change by both parties, what Mandela calls ‘knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer.’ ‘Ineffective debate’ resists this change process, prioritizing the static, the unchanging. It sees a dogmatic commitment to the ‘right’ answer as superior to one that is actuallu convincing. This approach does not result in people changing their minds, it wastes energy, and critically, can lead to two types of damaging outcomes. When parties end up holding to their positions and shouting over each other, damaging the potential to develop any form of future relationship. Or, when discussions result in one party leaving the debate stating, “my argument is correct! Any person who cannot agree with me is therefore either an idiot or incurably stubborn.” This approach is hypocritical and intellectually cowardly. The person leaving the debate, while often believing they are both right and righteous, is actually losing the argument.

Changing minds is simple, but it is not easy. It requires both sides to step away from their original positions, to share ideas, desires and limitations ‘frankly and thoroughly’, to end up ‘closer’ together. This requires the humility and confidence to change and to admit wrongness when necessary. As Mandela argues, it is this process of becoming closer that produces strength; real strength is not stolen from each other, it is built together. By approaching ‘a debate’ with the intention of emerging ‘closer’, instead of seeking only victory, the results can be more practical and effective.

Mandela’s words assert that the two sides must come together, their ideas must be ‘closer’ to the other person’s by the end. There is a necessary acceptance that good debate requires change in both parties. It is no good holding your position as absolute and expecting the other person to capitulate entirely to your views; not only is this an ‘arrogant’ place to argue from, it has been proved to be an extremely ineffective method of changing minds. Mandela understands the importance of this willingness to change as part of the debate process. That is why he uses the imperative ‘must’ – there can be no good debate, no ‘good leaders’, without this commitment to flexibility. The ability and confidence required to allow oneself to change during the course of a debate is not simple, the ego often gets in the way, reluctant to admit error or change its mind.

To understand this process better, we can look at two ideas posited in Mary P. Follett’s book ‘The New State’: the ‘power-over’ / ‘power-with’ dichotomy and the three ‘types’ of debate outcomes. Follett’s distinction between two different types of power is analogous to Mandela’s position. ‘Power over’ is like bad debate. It is interested primarily in dominance over the other party, a total power over the other that removes the need for discussion; ‘closeness’ becomes dangerous, an affront to the hierarchical system itself. Certainly, there is practicality in this position. Removing the need to debate complex issues and exercising absolute control over others makes the life of the powerful simpler, but it also leads to issues and inconsistencies. ‘Power over’ demands autocracy, with limited debate and no space for multiple points of view. Without the ‘strength’ that comes from intermingled ideas, ‘power over’ systems underperform. The leaders must constantly reassert their legitimacy through overt demonstrations of their power. and ensure all errors are blamed on outside forces; there can be no accountability. Such systems are unable to learn, unable to admit to errors, unable to be held accountable, and are at risk of eventually becoming unstable.

Follett’s alternative concept of power, ‘power-with’, is concerned, like Mandela, with closeness and strength. To Follett, debate works through three mechanisms: ‘Dominance’, ‘Compromise’ and ‘Interpenetration’.

Type of result	Definition	In application	Outcome
Dominance	One party totally defeats the other, they ‘win’ and the alternative is destroyed	Party A paints the wall red	Party B gets nothing. They are dissatisfied and will not want to capitulate to Party A on anything else.
Compromise	‘Solomon’s solution’; Both parties concede some element of their desire, but neither end up happy.	The wall is painted half red, half blue	Neither party has fully addressed their desires. Eventually, the problem will reemerge. Party A will say that the wall looks ugly painted this way, or Party B will argue that blue paint is cheaper … and the debate goes on and on. The actual outcome is worse and neither party is happy.
Interpenetration	A new, ‘third thing’ is created through the specific and unique interplay of the two parties.	The wall is painted purple.	Both parties feel a sense of ownership of the solution, pride at creating something new, and the relationship between Party A and Party B is closer. The argument is resolved

Follett argues that only interpenetration works as a method of productive, collective problem solving. Dominance and compromise can be useful in the short term, but because they do not directly address the concerns of both parties, the issue will eventually remerge again as one or both parties are unsatisfied with the result. Like Mandela, Follett understands that productive debate requires an intermingling between the two parties. This intermingling is layered; practically speaking, it involves the weaving of multiple perspectives into a new, third thing. This is achieved through the process of linguistic exchange (your words leave your body and enter the other party’s, their words return to you, through your ears and into your mind – something of you is in them, and something of them is now in you). It also requires the ego to dissolve and to allow empathy to emerge, breaking the barriers of self and creating new bonds between others. Both these actions which drive interpenetration depend on closeness.

Follett argues that, in addition to ‘interpenetration’ and empathy, any decision of importance or intended to make positive change involves some relationship with power, the force that gets things done. This allows us to conceptualise debate as something fundamentally practical. Debate must have a goal, a purpose, an impact or it risks becoming an interesting, but ultimately ‘superficial’ act. In this situation the debater can have all the facts, but no real understanding of the point of the debate, no real connection to the issue at hand; a purely conceptual debate held within the ivory tower of intellectualism, with no motivation or plan for implementing the result. Focusing on ideas rather than on power is a trap many well-intentioned debaters fall into, “privately deplor[ing] the horror of it all – and doing nothing’, as Saul Alinksky states; he then goes on to quote La Rochefoucault, who said ‘we all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others’.

Once we understand the importance of interpenetration and power in effective debate, we must ask how can this be achieved, how can we create the required closeness, We can distill ‘closeness’ into three avenues: physical closeness (proximity), emotional closeness (empathy), and practical closeness (immersion).

Debate is far more efficient when there is an element of physical proximity. Something about the physical actions of looking into another’s eyes, of speaking your words directly to them, is far more effective than a method that has to deal with distance. There is a practical component to this – the in-person debater can more easily assess body language or tone of voice, and adapt their arguments in real time. More importantly, physical proximity makes the topic of discussion more concrete, more real. Impersonal debate, often engaged with over the Internet, has a limited impact on changing minds. There is a level of impersonality that is extremely hard to overcome and furthermore, there is no way to tell whether the other has a real stake in the issue. It is no surprise that these ‘debates’ so often devolve into petty, academic arguments that are fundamentally disinterested in the actual work of changing themselves and others. Good debate must therefore encourage physical closeness as much as possible. This means having open, productive conversations with new and different people in real life. The effectiveness of this method is demonstrated by the fact people are far more likely to be tolerant of difference – in identity, race, religion, class, etc. – when they live their lives in casual, intermingled proximity. This is why cities tend to be more liberal than isolated small towns.

The second tactic is emotional closeness or empathy. Putting yourself in the position of others and appealing to the core of what really matters to them is essential for good, effective debate. David Broockman argues for using an approach called ‘deep canvassing’. This means ‘asking sensitive questions, listening to the answers with sincere interest and then asking more questions’. This requires empathy and curiosity. The most effective kinds of arguments are those that appeal emotionally to simple, shared interests: health, children, fairness, safety and financial stability, for instance, are found at the root of most people’s beliefs. Focusing your debate around these ideas can help change attitudes. For instance, it was shown that asking an an individual who holds a bias toward transgender people to recall a time when they were treated unfairly for being different and what that felt like, created an emotional bridge of shared experiences between themselves and transgender people, which leads them to reframe their views ‘These conversations substantially reduced transphobia’.

The third level of closeness is the practical, everyday immersion which facilitates effective debate. This can be achieved in many ways, including linguistic immersion through repeated conversation, creatively, by building something together or geographically. For example the Settlement Model, developed at the end of the 19th century, aimed to change society and public policy by prioritizing closeness. By bringing students to live, work and study in disadvantaged communities they sought to create a new process, one which worked by changing both the students and members of the community. By living together, building personal connections, talking, listening, parties continually reassessing and modifying their views, and a focus on immersion, they created a stronger society based on new ideas, new policies and new ways of living.

The ideas of closeness, understanding, creation, and of coming together in harmony are exemplified in images of dance; in particular, Henri Matisse’s ‘Dance’ (1909-1910). Here we see five figures rhythmically moving, a collective activity greater than the sum of the individuals that represents harmony and reconciliation. Although a close group, it is not closed; the two figures on the left, their hands parted, are offering an invitation to join in.

Danse Henri Matisse (1909-1910)