I recently received an email from a student expressing understandable concerns over a critical dialogue that will occur later in the term. As part of a quarter-long scaffolded writing assignment, this dialogue requires students to select a conversational partner from their own lives who disagrees with some part(s) of their argumentative project.
For students selecting topics related to controversial ideas, this can create a number of worries, not least of which is the fear that such a conversation could harm / at least damage the relationship.
In order to pre-empt this very common anxiety in my classes, I often begin the term teaching about and encouraging epistemic virtues such as intellectual humility and curiosity. In particular, I enjoy employing some brief hypotheticals to reignite these intuitions. E.g., asking students to consider:
- Whether or not they still hold the same beliefs as when they were 5 years old?
- Whether or not that is a good thing?
- Whether or not they enjoy the company of people who think they know all the answers / have everything figured out?
- Whether or not they want to be like those people?
- Whether or not it makes sense to be in college if everything they already believe turns out to be correct?
More directly related to the assignment, I find it imperative to highlight a common social misconception about disagreement; namely that questioning someone about their beliefs is a sign of disrespect. To challenge this internalized social lesson, I ask students to imagine how they would interpret the following scenario:
- You have just (i) given a presentation to the class, or (ii) shared with a dear friend / family member something you care very deeply about. After you're finished, there are no questions.
Pretty immediately, students recognize the flaw in presuming that disagreement = disrespect. This occurs when they see a lack of questions as a lack of listening / interest / care / respect. Once this misconception is challenged, the immediate concern shifts from asking questions to anxiety about how people will respond.
To these worries, I wanted to share the following communique I have had with my own students should anyone else benefit from them:
REPLYING TO STUDENT CONCERNS OVER ASSIGNMENTS WHICH REQUIRE DISAGREEMENT
Thank you for your question and the thoughtfulness with which you are approaching this course and the assignments. As difficult (and unfortunately often fraught with conflict) as disagreeing can be; that is precisely what that portion of the assignment is meant to help alleviate. This will involve:- being selective in who one's conversational partner is (as not everyone who disagrees with us is in a position to engage intellectually with their own beliefs)
- using strategies and rhetoric that invite disagreement rather than confronting someone with it (e.g., the Socratic Method) and
- modeling calmness and openmindedness as well as relying on the confidence one has built after spending weeks on a research topic (as you will have done by the time we get to this dialogue)
Otherwise, I would highly encourage you to lean into your critical lens, and point it precisely where your intuition guides you. 🤓
PREPARING A CLASS FOR ASSIGNMENTS WHICH REQUIRE DISAGREEMENT
Now more than ever, I fear that the most necessary skill we need to cultivate is the ability to converse with those who disagree with us in a productive and respectful manner. I hope you take as many opportunities as you can in your life to have such dialogues about those topics which you deem worth dedicating your time and energy to understanding.
I also hope that you have been and are able to continue to cultivate the following intellectual virtues:
- Confidence: The positive and motivating feeling of entering into a conversation (which you know ahead of time will include disagreement) having done your research on the topic and feeling capable of addressing potential objections.
- Clarity: The ability to take and adapt technical and discipline-specific language and concepts in order to explain them more clearly to lay persons.
- Humility: The willingness to listen to differing view points and taking them seriously enough to warrant consideration and response.
- Tact: The strategy of listening to the points of view of others, as well as explaining your own; and the understanding that any attempt to persuade others is a combination of both what we say, as well as how we choose to say it.