Gaining a New Perspective: Embracing Both Sides of Divisive Brexit and Culture War Debates, Says Anne McElvoy

Vehement disagreement comes naturally to many individuals, particularly in our current divisive times. It often feels easier to focus on our differences rather than finding common ground. While it is important to stand up for our beliefs, constantly being defined by our disagreements can be wearing. From Brexit to culture wars, starting spats and blame games is effortless, but ending them proves more challenging.

As a columnist, I have participated in numerous pro-and-con debates on familiar dividing lines over the past decade. However, since 2018, I have taken a hiatus from these weekly conflicts to embark on something different for the summer airwaves.

The idea for Across the Red Line on BBC Radio 4 arose from a shared frustration myself and the show’s producer, Phil Tinline, felt towards traditional formats of public debate. These formats often trapped participants in their own worldviews, encouraging them to gather ammunition to attack opponents rather than seeking to understand the reasons behind differing convictions. A lighthearted remark about conflict resolution experts sparked the concept for a show that delves into the roots of people’s beliefs and explores what it feels like to hold convictions vastly different from our own.

In our show, we guide participants who are typically defined by their stances to utilize “active listening” techniques, thanks to the expertise of two wonderful conflict resolution practitioners, Gabrielle Rifkind and Louisa Weinstein. The goal is to uncover the foundations of opposing convictions and then, for the fun part, switch positions to express the opposing view.

This season, we have tackled topics such as immigration, with two speakers who have diverging views on the benefits of immigration for Britain, despite both having migrant family backgrounds. We have also debated the abolition of the monarchy, taxation, and delved into subtler themes that shape our era, like the relevance of the “centrist dad” and the merits of seeking fame.

I vividly recall our first episode, where Hugh Muir, now the executive editor of the Guardian’s Opinion section, and Charles Moore, a high Tory commentator and former editor at the Telegraph, debated whether it is acceptable to be wary of individuals from different backgrounds. Muir, who had previously worked at the Telegraph, shared his experiences of being a young black man in an all-white newsroom and reporting from homogenous villages. The breakthrough moment was when Moore, after switching roles, reflected on how his perspectives would be different if he had undergone the same experiences. It was a simple recognition that doesn’t often come naturally. It’s not about admitting fault, but rather gaining a better understanding of someone else’s perspective. Observing two passionate individuals attempt to adopt each other’s mindset provides a fresh lens through which we can analyze our clashes and improve communication. One listener described it as people “working hard at their disagreements.”

Polly Toynbee expressed concerns about the segment where participants express the opposing view. She worried about being mistaken for her opponent if someone tuned in halfway through the show while she was attacking a practice like assisted dying. However, adopting the other side’s viewpoint is a crucial method in conflict resolution, albeit a challenging one to execute effectively. When listening to parish councillor Jackie Weaver, known for her role in lockdown Zoom meetings, argue from the perspective of “boomers” against Henry Hill from Conservative Home, representing the millennial view, the airwaves crackled with intensity.

Has this format had a transformative effect on me? Undoubtedly. I now listen more closely during debates to identify areas of potential common ground and understanding. I am more aware of the pivotal moments in our arguments where we find ourselves on unstable ground but hesitate to examine our flaws or biases. Moreover, I recognize how formative experiences and personal narratives have a lasting impact on our opinions, even if we perceive them as entirely rational. Listening, it turns out, is a skill that requires exercise; it cannot simply be reduced to patiently waiting for our turn to speak.

In our latest episode, Peter Tatchell, a veteran of protests against apartheid and clause 28, passionately defended disruptive protest. He engaged in a thought-provoking conversation with Bruce Anderson, who believes his own experiences as a firebrand protester in Northern Ireland only perpetuated strife. While they didn’t always agree, I sense that they left with a greater understanding of why others possess strong opposing opinions. It’s a small step forward.

Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.