Free to Learn

Dinner Table Dynamics: "No Small Potatoes"

November 17, 2021 Santa Fe College / Alanis Gonzalez and Heather Season 1 Episode 5
Free to Learn
Dinner Table Dynamics: "No Small Potatoes"
Show Notes Transcript

Why do we fear disagreement and conflict? Does conflict have to be antagonistic or can it still be useful?  Alanis Gonzalez, SF student and Heather Irons discuss examples of when they've feared conflict and alternatively when confronting conflict has been beneficial to communication.  They address knowing when to walk away, and touch upon deescalation through tone and preventing an adversarial atmosphere. 

Sound clip:  Alanis Gonzalez from 23:59 to 24:18. 

The Center for Applied Ethics & Humanities at Santa Fe College (SF) promotes the values of honesty, integrity, and civility, as well as individual, social, and global responsibility. It fosters appreciation for ethical reasoning and encourages and supports active engagement with ethics and humanities in our communities – in thought and action, (((In Word And Deed))). This podcast, a product of the center, features SF faculty, students and alumni engaging in dialogue around critical ethical issues. The first season, "Dinner Table Dynamics," features current and former members of SF’s nationally ranked Ethics Bowl team and fellows in the Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership. They encourage listeners to practice civil discourse as they head home for the holidays, and into extended family discussions. Learn more at sfcollege.edu/ethics. Share your thoughts (and actions) with @santafecollege using #InWordAndDeed.

Ann Thebaut 0:01
Hello and welcome to In Word and Deed, a podcast produced by the Center for Applied Ethics and Humanities at Santa Fe College. I'm Ann Thebaut Professor of Philosophy here at SF and in a moment, you'll hear from some of my students who have participated in Ethics Bowl over the years and a few who are Fellows in the Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership, which is committed to reducing polarization by teaching students to connect across political differences. This desire to connect is increasingly on our minds as we think about being around family over the holidays, and the prospect of sitting down to have discussions with people we don't always agree with. Today, Heather and Alanis dig into anger and conflict and strategies for deescalating in our episode "No Small Potatoes".  


Alanis Gonzalez  0:49 

Hello everyone. My name is Alanis Gonzalez and I'm currently a student here at Santa Fe. I'm currently part of the Ethics Bowl team as well as the ICDP as a senior fellow and representative for the college, and I'm right here with Heather 

  

Heather Irons  1:01  

Hi I'm Heather Anne Irons. I'm a former student at Santa Fe. I used to compete in the Ethics Bowl team, and I'm currently majoring in philosophy at American University in Washington, DC. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  1:10   

That's cool. So, for today's episode, that we're titling "No Small Potatoes". We're going to talk about disagreement. Why do we fear disagreement and conflict and how it doesn't necessarily have to be adversarial but can still be useful. So, it's that time of the season where family gathers and conflicts inherently arise, and emotions can escalate and it's really easy to get carried away so as an ethical person, you try to maintain conversations to be constructive, but oftentimes, that kind of leads to you biting your own tongue and try not to explode. But that's also not a good thing. So, Heather, what is an occasion where you were tentative to disagree, because you want to avoid conflict? 

  

Heather Irons  2:02 

I usually avoid situations where I would be in conflict and even when I am in situations of conflict, I tend to stay quiet. And this isn't really like an academic example, where I'm disagreeing with somebody but there was one time where I was on a bus and the person next to me had this huge backpack that was like, really in my space, like, honestly, like on me, and I didn't say anything so embarrassing. Something, right. But no, I was like, I don't want to like I don't want this person to be mad at me or whatever. And when that person left people behind me were like, Oh, I can't believe I was like, oh, yeah, you know, I was just gonna really like anxious about the situation. But honestly, I'm not the first person to do that, like a lot of situations where people are uncomfortable. They'll just, you know, take it. Wait until it's over.  

Alanis Gonzalez 3:05 

Yeah.  

 

Heather Irons 3:06 

Yeah, I don’t know if you've been in a situation like that? Yeah, it's, it's, it's really difficult, um, but in terms of like, ideal ideological disagreements. Those I tend to keep quiet in as well. Unless I'm going to space for, you know, an academic space where it's encouraged to kind of, you know, speak out or bring a different point of view, I would say in like everyday life, it's, it's not encouraged to disagree with somebody if they are speaking. And that's why it's more important because of being around family, you're much more likely to be around people that you have different views from and so kind of dealing with this sphere of disagreement is, is all that more important. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  4:05 

Yeah. And kind of piggybacking off what you said, I really liked that point that you mentioned that disagreement within academic spaces is completely different from disagreement in everyday life. So whereas we might be like super assertive, great ethical bowlers, like in the academic space, once we go out, we get people pushing our faces and we won't even say anything. Because it's that fear of like creating conflict and spaces. So you really don't have a lot of control. Like there's no mediation, or at least it doesn't feel like there's any mediation because of this person gets a Superman that you said, Hey, can you scoot a little bit to the left, so you're not switching my face? You don't really know what's going to happen. So, a big reason why we fear conflict in those spaces is, you know, unpredictability and outreach can be very scary. I'm going to tell you, yeah, because an academic speaks of someone gets really mad. Now, there's somebody to be like, hey, you know, we're in space where we're trying to be collegial and civic, all that, but it's not screaming at us. Like Oh God, what do I do? 

  

Heather Irons  5:11  

Yeah. Though, there shouldn't be a fear of disagreement because it can foster, like, more communication or unity understanding between two parties. Have you had a time where you actually engage with someone, like someone you disagree with, and it actually turned out to be cheap, not that bad? Yeah. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  5:33 

So, I feel like a big part of actually engaging in disagreement and conflict is like saying it's just a part of communication. Because again, it's that fear of oh, I'm gonna say something that's gonna, you know, touch a nerve or it's gonna cause like a really negative reaction. But a lot of times like desk escalation is kind of in your head. Like, a big thing is I'm currently rooming with my brother, and you know, it's a family member. And that has its pros and cons. Because if it's just like a random roommate, if that person gets mad at you, it's like, okay, you know, it's awful, because like it still feels anxious like anxiety inducing. Because it's not a person you know that well, but when it's a family member, it's like okay, I have to see my brother no matter what and creating conflict within your own family carries like a bigger I want to say consequence. So I think that a big part of learning to live together with my brother is just realizing that we're inherently gonna clash. Like it's just part of the process of being two people sharing a space. And that, you know, we were both kind of anxious and maybe pointing out like, “Hey, can you do the dishes”, or, “Hey, I don't like it when you come in at 11 in the night and you're just slamming the door”. And in actually addressing them, even though we both kind of like, approach it kind of neatly, at first and doing it is that we prevent us from like growing resentful, or one another, or blowing up in each other's faces and actually create a more comfortable living situation because it's like, we both know what the stakes are. We both know what the other person is. Thinking. So instead of it being like this mind game of like, ooh, am I going to like accidentally trigger something? You know, it's that part of again, maintaining an active communication and being engaged in spaces that you're in, no matter if it's like family or stranger. 

  

Heather Irons  7:32 

Right and like engaging with others, you always take that risk of, you know, conflict. And sometimes, you know, when you're engaging with somebody else, they don't listen to you and that can be I don't know if that's, that's common. uncommon. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  7:54 

It's not common or common. Just the fact that it happens makes it valuable. 

  

Heather Irons  8:02  

Right, and so, it's, like really important to assess the situation and see if it's worth investing your time into, because if that person's like not going to listen to you, or even take into consideration what your thoughts are, or whatever problems that you have, then it can actually not be fruitful, and sometimes it's just easier or not easier. And I think sometimes it's best for the conversation if you just like to walk away because that other person isn't listening to you. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  8:40 

And that's an excellent point because we also want to point out that when we say that disagreement is you know, it should be confronted, we don't necessarily mean that you have to deck it out till the end. Part of having an effective conversation is knowing when to disengage. And part of learning how to do that is identifying when you know, the other party or even yourself are not listening to what they're actually saying. So oftentimes, I noticed that during these kinds of conversations, like for example, maybe you're having a disagreement with someone and they're like, oh, no, you didn't take out the trash, but then you're like, yes, I did. And no matter what you say, or how much you try to like, explain how you did in fact, take it out. They're not really there to hear you out. They're just kind of stubborn into the fact that you know, the trash has not been taking out and has to blame somebody, therefore, it's your fault. So oftentimes, you just kind of notice that when they're just kind of reiterating what you're, what you're saying like repeating what you're saying, but not actually like processing it. So even if they're maintaining, like a calm tone, they're not actually engaging. So a lot of people think that like a bad disagreement or like and not effective communication is someone getting like really mad and like really loud, when sometimes people are mad, but they're gone. Like their tone is so passive and so like eloquent that you don't even notice that you're not actually getting anything across. So, I don't know I think a big part of it is again, making sure that you're actually listening to what they're saying that you're actually taking it into consideration. And that it goes both ways, because at the end of the day communication instead of going about it being like mutual comprehension, and knowing what the other person like, this may sound kind of weird, but you how you translate things to other people. So everyone has different ways of understanding it. So, by kind of knowing what kinds of people you're, you're talking to, you kind of know what triggers outrage and what triggers negative responses and what actually appeals to them engaging with you so maybe I wouldn't phrase this things the same way I would to you. But at the end of the day, if it gets the point across, that's what's important. And sometimes you just have to disengage to get to get that same point across. If it's even worth your time. Does that make any sense? 

  

Heather Irons  11:00 

Yes, that makes complete sense. And, I guess engaging with others, a time that like, for example, I used to work at an abortion clinic and so the protesters outside were very vocal, especially if I was just like standing there, or especially were like vocal towards patients. And sometimes patients would get really angry. And they would have conversations, but you could tell that nothing was really being done and when you have a situation that's like or when you have a topic that's as like hot button like as abortion, yeah, you'll have, you know, you'll have people who just aren't going to agree with you. And that's something that I learned during my time there is that no, protesters are going to if I engage in a conversation with a protester, they're not going to they're not there to be convinced by they're there to get their point across. So really understanding like the purpose of the argument or the purpose of the conversation. Both parties have to understand there has to be like a mutual understanding that that an agreement has to come to or that each party will understand each other a bit better after the conversation. If that purpose is established, I think that creates space for you know, two parties who are disagreeing to come to an agreement or come to a mutual position. But I think that purpose has to be established first. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  12:07 

Then Heather, given all of your experiences, I feel like you are perfect for answering this question. How do you really decide what people are worth engaging with? Like, are there any cues? Are there any tactics all that? 

  

Heather Irons  12:22 

Well, I don't think you can tell from just sheer appearance, you might, you know, feel uncomfortable approaching someone that you know, so obviously, like shares their view or so, like, it's very confident and displaying their view, but I think the cues come more in like in conversation and communication. Because if you, are you know, explaining yourself in explaining your points, the other person, you know, either attacks something that has nothing to do with the conversation or just reiterates their point of view instead of listening to you and responding to what you said. I think that's kind of the, the, the cue like checkout because they're not actually listening to you. They're just kind of trying to win an argument and sometimes very extreme responses. Just let me know that I don't need to continue a conversation anymore. For example, this is actually with family. And we were, we were watching the news and it might have been something it might have been something about COVID And like, how it was spreading really fast and like getting all these people sick and like people need to be safe. And I was watching it with my uncle, and I was like, Oh yeah, that's like true. You should, like you know, wear your masks and be safe because it's reading. And he says, I don't need them. Ask her I don't need a vaccine. God is my health care. Okay, I respect it. But I understand now that anything I say to you about, you know, ways to, like race to stop like, other ways to end or to you know, stop the prevention of COVID Is it really going to click with you because it's it's not I don't have like a religious affiliation to your religious reason as to why to wear masks or something like that. Another person probably could have you know, connected with him on that level and you know, talked about God and health and you know, life and all those things, but I was definitely not the person for that. So that that's just what I checked out and I stopped the conversation instead of you know, just trying to push what I thought was the more reasonable answer. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  14:52 

Yeah, no, that's great. And it's kind of that point of having to translate things for what appeals to different people. And that as he said, as maybe you're not the person to address that, maybe someone else who does have knowledge and background and what he like, beliefs and what appeals to him might actually be able to foster a way of thinking or like Taylor's mind or anything like that. 

  

Heather Irons  15:20   

Great. Yeah. Yeah, I guess it's important to know that you're not always like the right person. That sounds bad. No, I get what you mean. Yeah, you're not always gonna be the person that can relate to somebody on that level. I mean, I think, I think personally, there can be something that everyone can connect to, but if it's if it's in regards to something particular like a particular, like ethnic group, or religious group, sometimes you just can't, like get to that person or connect to that person. And it's, yeah, it's just a matter of knowing when to when to stop and disengage and, and hopefully there'll be a chance for further conversation in the future. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  16:01  

Yeah, and directing them I guess, to a lot of other spaces that may be able to have more engaging and more constructive conversations with different people. Because, again, a lot of like, disagreement is again about a sense of belonging, and finding communities that even in disagreement, you feel like you're being understood. Excellent points. 

  

Heather Irons  16:22   

So honest, what are some ways that you can de-escalate a conversation if it starts to get out of control? And showing some of that outrage that you talked about before? 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  16:35 

So I think the primary tactic for me is asserting a certain tone. So even though a tone doesn't necessarily indicate that everything is now you know, it like references just because the tone is calm does not necessarily mean that the conversation is now engaged in collegial and all that, but and kind of asserting that hey, you know, I'm not I'm trying not to be riled up. I'm trying to listen, and I'm here to actively listen to you with both, like my body language and my actual language, I think is really important. And sometimes even saying to somebody like, hey, you know, I understand why you feel that way. And come from a place of wanting to comprehend, rather than trying to be adversarial, trying to change your mind or trying to attack them, make them feel like hey, we're both in the same level. We're both in the same standing ground. I just want to come to a place where we're both, like in harmony and that we're both understanding one another and that we actually reach a solution or an ideological understanding that will actually be productive. 

  

Heather Irons  17:39 

Right, there's a lot of like when it comes to situations like that there's a lot of emotions like all over the place, and so it's important to kind of address those emotions. I feel like and be like, Hey, I understand you're feeling angry or I understand this topic makes you you know, feel, you know, very frustrated, and try to get to, like you said, come from a place of comprehension and trying to really understand and make them know that you're listening to that and that, you know, it doesn't have to be doesn't have to be a full hour argument. So, yeah, I think that's good for de escalation. Yeah. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  18:20   

And it's good that you mentioned like addressing feelings because oftentimes people feel like feelings are inherently irrational, that they feel like a knowledge and feelings is also a personal attack, because people tend to also weaponize your feelings. So they're like, Oh, I know you're feeling really angry right now. And that can sometimes even cause, like further escalation because it's like, oh, you're accusing me now. Of being irrational. But you know, trying to also phrase it in a way to I understand why we have this conflict because try to keep a neutral rather than like, accusatory almost like you're feeling this, like trying not to tell people what they feel, but instead of like, I'm feeling this. This is what's happening. Instead of it being like, I don't want your staff unless they actually say that they're sad. I'm in kind of a dressing also how disagreement can lead to being more authentic, what is the difference between you know, authenticity and really getting every opinion that you have out there in order to you know, let everyone know what you're thinking? versus, you know, being able to disengage? Like are you being authentic by not expressing every disagreement that you have with a person, or do you think that there's a time in place? 

  

Heather Irons  19:35   

Um, I do think there's a time and place but there's also a way to get your point across that. That won't come up as like, aggressive. I think there's like, very, like subtle ways, of kind, of showing your, your viewpoints and expressing yourself without barging into every conversation with like, oh, well, I'm this political party, and I believe this, this and that. I think it definitely, I guess in, in regard to timing, please. I guess it also depends on your environment and like who you're around, not that that can stop you from giving your opinion, but I think it would, I think it would, it would affect the way you relate that opinion as like, if you were like, if you were in a space where you weren't sure of everybody's views, in comparison to a space where you know, you're with your friends and so you're, you're, you're comfortable being you know, or you're comfortable expressing your views. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  21:05 

Yeah, and a lot of this stuff is contradictory, but not in a bad way. It's just that a lot of ideas regarding disagreement are going to be contradictory because you're always weighing out like, Okay, do I want to be assertive, or do I want to be passive and like, is a long term consequence better than the short term outcome? So a lot of this times it's just kind of weighing things out all the time. And, you know, there's conflict of Oh, whether you want to be assertive without drowning others out. So there are some people that just want to be controversial or just want to get every opinion out there without any like, doubts about what they think. And, you know, it might create a lot of like, I won't say outrage or like a lot of response from others. But if they're willing to deal with the consequences of that, which is like hey, you know, my a lot of people might not be able to deal with you. But then you're like, okay, the people that do deal with me are people that agree with me. And you know, I think it is always important to be able to engage with people that you disagree with. So I'm not saying that's the best method, but that is the thought process. A lot of people kind of go into it with so a lot of this just weighing out what consequences you want and that, you know, from an ethical perspective, from wanting to be an engaged person in wanting to be a person that's able to relate to others, like family, strangers, and just generally people of like diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, is, again, making sure that you're assertive, but you don't drown anybody out, that you acknowledge what consequences certain opinions have and that sometimes those consequences are worth it. So maybe you don't have a certain group agreeing with you. But sometimes you don't want to agree with that group. 

  

Heather Irons  23:01  

Yeah, I think that like what a lot of I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about a certain people it's because they've seen a lot of like examples of people who've just like bulldoze other people who tried to talk to them or who are so like stubborn in their own view that it it just makes you uncomfortable. Because then you can't ask that person questions and you can kind of like, you know, you can inquire about that person's like views to where you would understand it more because there's so like, just stuck in the ground on their own view and they're so just like loud, loud and long or loud, so loud or loud about it, and they refuse to just engage with other people. But I think I think if you had, you know, certain views that you know, are, are controversial or you have certain views that you would like to express I think you should be open to like having conversations with other people and engaging with other people who disagree with you. 

  

Alanis Gonzalez  24:01  

Yeah. And a lot of it is again, it's a sense of belonging. So, there are forms of socially acceptable rage, and I feel like in this culture especially, it's like specially like the two extremes are socially acceptable. So either you're incredibly passive, don't say anything, or you have to be very, like, mad when like, everything's pouring out and you're super assertive. So escalation of like anger and intense feelings are only accepted both when it's not there at all. And like at its extreme, but when you try to hold it in it oftenly sue the other one. So even if you're trying to deescalate by trying not to say anything and keeping your composure all that it's going to come out because those feelings need to be addressed some somehow, it's just has to be redirected. In either being constructive about it disengaging and getting the energy out and other means but it has to be addressed in some form.  

So, yeah disagreement is inherent, it is important, and there are different ways to approach it.  I had a professor that once said, “If you have anything interesting to say, there is another rational, intelligent person that will disagree with you”.  

 

Heather Irons 25:15 

Yeah, of course.  

 

Alanis Gonzalez 25:19 

It was a pleasure talking with you Heather. So, stay tuned for the next episode. It will be between Paola and Brian who are married, so we'll see what kind of disagreements arise from that. So we hope you tune in and see you next time.