In political conversations, critical listening provides one the opportunity to construct counterarguments and rebuttals in support of one’s position or opinion. This listening purpose may produce a victor but does little to make the conversation comfortable for all participants, especially family and friends. Listening critically also contributes to the potential of a conversation spiraling into a serial argument. Over time, these patterns can erode positivity in relationships.
Listening
to understand, on the other hand, allows participants in the conversation to
possibly find common ground, even if they disagree about candidates or issues. This purpose requires one to paraphrase what
was heard and to ask questions for clarification of position and underlying
interests. An example is asking what the most valuable quality in a chosen
candidate looks like to the other person. A follow-up question could be asking what
we expect someone with that quality to do as a leader. Listening to understand
shows family and friends that you have an interest their views. It also can set
a pattern of reciprocity for the conversation in which listening to understand
becomes a focus for both people as they take turns.
We do
find ourselves living in and coping with a divisive political climate. However, that does not mean that our
political conversations have to be divisive.
In conversations with family and friends, there should be an expectation
of being heard with respect, albeit sometimes without agreement. When we have a
listening purpose to understand, that expectation is better realized.
Gwen A.
Hullman, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at
Ashland University. She studies conflict resolution and health communication,
and has served as a volunteer mediator for several years.
No comments:
Post a Comment