Exceptions to the principle of inclusive dialogue
As part of the INCLUSIVITY research project, we interviewed 76 citizens of Catalonia (between 2022 and 2023) with diverse backgrounds and political opinions to collect both numbers and statistics (quantitative data) and personal opinions (qualitative data) on how people deal with political disagreements in everyday life in polarized contexts. Using this mix of methods (including both closed and open-ended questions in interviews about 2 hours long), one of the questions asked participants whether they agreed or disagreed with a general and abstract principle of inclusive dialogue. This principle refers to a potential non-written norm that encourages people to listen to one another and understand different perspectives, regardless of the other person’s opinions. More specifically, we asked participants how much they agreed with the following statement: “Despite our differences, one must listen to anyone in society, engage in sincere dialogue with them, and try to understand/empathize with their opinions, behaviours, and experiences.” Participants rated their agreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 meant they completely disagreed and 7 that they completely agreed. The results indicated very strong levels of agreement: 61 of the participants (80%) chose one of the two highest ratings (6 or 7), and the average value was 6.12 out of 7 (for more details, see our fieldwork report, pages 22-23).
Then, we asked participants to explain their previous responses and to reflect on how the principle of inclusive dialogue influences how they behave with others; that is, to what extent they try to apply this principle in their everyday lives. Their responses (which typically lasted 3 to 5 minutes) revealed their personal experiences with conversations about politics, highlighting the challenges and contradictions they face when trying to practice inclusive dialogue in real life. While most agreed that engaging in political conversations with everyone is important, they also described situations where they felt it was okay not to follow this principle. For example, a participant responded: “As a utopia, it is great, it is wonderful. […] I do try, but I can’t do it.” Such responses resonate with the formula comically known as “Yes, But” (see this popular social media account, by internet artist Gudim), which illustrates in a cartoonish way the contradictions between what people believe or claim and what they actually do. Our participants felt that at least three types of exceptions to the principle of inclusive dialogue were justified, which we summarized in the meme at the top.
Yes, but not like this
First, there were situations where participants believed that the conditions for genuine political dialogue were lacking. Many emphasized the importance of mutual understanding and empathy, pointing out that it is essential for both individuals in a conversation to be willing to listen to and engage with each other. As one female participant, Aina*, put it: “You need to dialogue, you need to be empathetic, you need to find solutions, but when one person has first repeatedly shown that they are not willing…” Also, as Rosario expressed: “Yes, I am in favour of listening, but of being listened to as well.” Another reason for this exception is the lack of a possible agreement or shared outcome for those expecting something out of such dialogue. Some participants felt it is pointless to engage in political dialogue when they already know the other person’s opinion, especially when their views are too far apart. Then, “why insist?” as Carolina stated. Lastly, and closely connected to the previous point, there is the impossibility of changing someone’s mind. Some participants acknowledged that, while it might be possible to have a debate once or twice, if the other person is not open to changing their views, it may not be worth continuing. Manuel, for example, argued: “The first time, yes, you can debate it, but if the other is not going to change…”
Yes, but not about this
A second exception refers to interviewees’ feeling it is impossible to talk about certain sensitive topics. A common topic that arose as difficult to discuss with others was the debate over Catalan independence. In Luis’ words: “Now, in Catalan society, there are certain issues that one does not touch […] because one knows they can cause a stir between people.” Similarly, Laura was aware of her own contradictions: “I totally agree with this statement [about inclusive dialogue], but I am incapable of empathizing on certain issues. […] For example, the issue of the independentists, it seems to me that it is one of my taboo subjects”. Others were more indirect about avoiding the topic of independence as such, and justified their refusal to discuss this topic in terms of respect to legality. Enrique is a good example: “Do we have to dialogue with everyone? Yes, but if someone proposes something outside the law, well, then no.”
Hate speech was also used to justify this exception to the norm. For instance, Marc highlighted the need to listen to all views but is hesitant when some people express hateful opinions. He said: “Obviously, we must listen to one another […] but I’m in the middle […] because there are people with speeches that express hate.” More specifically, some interviewees directly set clear boundaries on topics they feel can call into question fundamental human rights. For instance, Jesús stated that “No one can argue about slavery, we have overcome it” and, along the same lines, Andrés pointed out that racism crosses a line for him: “We must empathize, but there is a limit [such as] racism”. Relatedly, some participants pointed out that conversations about sexual orientation and gender can also be tricky and may sometimes function as exemptions to inclusive dialogue. According to Luis, when talking to certain people, there may be issues that should be avoided to prevent discomfort. More specifically, he said: “If you are with a homosexual, you may not touch certain topics that may attract his attention […] or the other way around, you know what I mean? If you’re with a woman, well, maybe you don’t touch certain topics, or maybe she won’t tell you about other topics.”
Yes, but not with you
A last exception refers to participants finding it justified to avoid dialogue with social contacts who differed in political views. Again, discrepancies on the controversial issue of Catalan independence figured prominently in these considerations. For example, Rosario, a supporter of Catalonia’s independence from Spain, mentioned that while she believes everyone should be listened to, she draws the line at engaging with members of the far right and the Spanish nationalist political party, Vox, because of their views. She admits: “I have a barrier against people from Vox, because of the way they think…” Similarly, Mauricio, who opposes Catalonia’s quest for independence, insisted several times that he always tries to empathize with others. However, he recounted that he declined a personal invitation to meet and have lunch with a pro-independence politician: “I don’t eat with people who have had yellow ribbons [symbol expressing support for imprisoned pro-independence Catalan leaders] hanging from their lapels for years.”
Interviewees also avoided talking with intolerant individuals, variously referred to, depending on participants‘ views and personal experiences, as fascists, nazis, racists, xenophobes, or either right- or left-wing extremists. As Andrés put it: “I always try to empathize, understand and listen to the arguments of people who think completely oppositely to me, except when they are very intolerant.” Similarly, Guillem expressed his ‘conditional willingness’ to discuss politics: “With everyone who has arguments [yes, I agree], but with the extreme right I’m not normally going to sit down and talk about anything. What’s the point?” Another type of exceptions included avoiding talking with people with criminal intentions or behaviors, like Dolores said: “Yes, of course you have to listen, dialogue, et cetera… as long as the person’s intentions are not criminal” Finally, some people are also put off by individuals they consider uneducated or disrespectful, describing conversations with such people as frustrating. Enrique’s words are quite blunt and self-explanatory in this regard: “There are people who are very uneducated and [with whom] talking is very complicated, who are clueless and only say nonsense.”
Final reflections
Now, what might explain these apparent contradictions between participants’ self-reported support for inclusive dialogue in general and the many “buts” that people express right after that when inquired about their own experiences and behaviours? There are various possible interpretations of these discrepancies, but a participant, Marta, pointed to a very plausible explanation: “Nobody is going to admit that they don’t want to empathize with others or to understand them, right? Because that looks… it’s politically incorrect, isn’t it?” Do they simply pretend to agree with the norm to make themselves look good to others? Or does the inconsistency between their values and their behaviours lead them to cover their contradictions this way? Perhaps some of these exceptions show us limitations to the norm that nuance the ideal-type formulation of inclusive dialogue. We must discuss these issues further to continue building a more inclusive society. Yes, we agree, BUT our space here is up ;)
*Please note that, in order to protect the anonymity of our participants, we refer to them using pseudonyms instead of their real names.
Text originally published in the INCLUSIVITY research project website: Inclusive dialogue? “Yes, but…” - INCLUSIVITY - Inclusivity Norms to Counter Polarization in European Societies.
