I read this old post over at The Republic of T, and it really got me thinking. It’s called A question on dailogue and T writes:
When I first came to D.C. to work in politics, and to work specifically on gay rights issues, I was told and came to understand that people fall into three categories when you’re working for social change:
1. The people who are on your side.
2. The people who aren’t on your side, but could be if they’re persuaded.
3. The people who are not on your side and never will be.The first group you need to talk to in order to keep them informed and motivated. The second group you need to talk to in order to make your case and move them to your side. Talking to the third group is a waste of time and energy better spent shoring up support in the first group and winning support in the second group.
There are some interesting thoughts in the comments section. I have been thinking a lot about this ever since reading it a few days ago. Is there any point in talking to people from the third group?
I have a morbid fascination for reading letters to the editor and reader’s comments to newspaper articles. I also read a lot of blog comments. And very very rarely have I come across anyone who has said, after being faced with arguments from “the other side”: you know what, you’re right. I’ve changed my mind.
Of course, it is possible that we can “plants seeds” of thought in their heads by exposing them to our arguments. But then on the other hand, I can’t see myself changing my mind on issues like the death penalty, sexual and reproductive rights, or GLBT rights, however many opinions and articles on these issues I read from people with views opposite of mine. So why should we have any more luck with them?
Another view is that we have the responsibility to at least try to educate the people from group three. But as a commenter over a T:s said, there is the old saying about never trying to teach a pig to sing. It will only waste your time and annoy the pig.
There is always the argument that you shouldn’t let people speak unopposed, but call out their logical fallacies, their propaganda, false use of statistics, straw-men arguments and other dirty tricks (I touched upon that here).
I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I think it is much more efficient to use the counter-argumentation to solidify the support of group one and sway over people from group two. I think it’s more efficient to say “look what x said about gay rights - here’s why x is wrong” instead of addressing x directly (given that x isn’t someone you personally relate to, like a family member, or that x is actually interested in open, honest discussion).
As T writes:
So I start to wonder, given all the above, why they’d want to waste their time in a dialogue where both parties are immovable. It’s then that I wonder if, for the third group, engaging in dialogue or at least pretending to is a tactic because if you’re talking to them you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group. And if you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group, spending your energy arguing with the third, then you aren’t making any progress on your goals.
This is a tough issue, and I really don’t know where to come down on it.
Entries (RSS)