Civil Dialogue

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization. 

By Scott Lazenby
January 25, 2019

The fool persuades me with his reasons, the wise man persuades me with my own.  – Aristotle

Some politicians seem to lack skill in diplomacy and civil dialogue. But it isn’t limited to them. In my forty years of city management, I’ve observed at least 1,000 hours of citizen comments during city council meetings and public hearings. In many cases, their choice of language serves as a barrier to civil dialogue. Here are a half dozen categories of unhelpful speech, and suggestions on what to say instead:

1. Hyperbole, exaggeration. Examples: “This development will ruin our neighborhood.” “His leaf blower is deafening.” “Everybody is against this proposal.” “The pothole is big enough to swallow a Volkswagen.” “There are a myriad of issues with the way this thing was designed.” “People are speeding all the time.”

Instead: Strive to be precise and accurate. “This development will add 90 trips per day on our local street, using the city’s trip generation table.” “His leaf blower sounds to me like it’s as loud as a lawnmower.”

There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. — John von Neumann

2. Abstract concepts and jargon. There are many examples of words and phrases that mean completely different things to different people: density, smart growth, sustainability, urban sprawl, citizen engagement, transparency, neighborhood character, livability, beauty and ugliness, growth, property rights, core services, family values, undesirable element, environment, community, timeliness, process, equity and so on. These words and phrases work against, not for, good communication.

Instead: First define the abstract concept, or even better, avoid it altogether. How, precisely, are you personally affected by an existing or proposed action or decision? Exactly what is the outcome you would like to see, in measurable or at least tangible terms? For example, instead of “I’m anti-growth,” try, “I’ve noticed that it’s harder to find a camping spot or a place to fish, and driving downtown takes a half hour longer than it did twenty years ago.”

Obscurity is usually the refuge of incompetence. ― Robert A. Heinlein

3. Metaphors, clichés, and similes. Examples: “On the backs of…” “Shoved down our throats”  “I’m fed up…” “Push through.” “An attack on…” “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”

Instead: To paraphrase Nike, just don’t do it. Save parables for abstract ideas like heaven and infinity; use earthy language for earthly issues.

Mystification is simple; clarity is the hardest thing of all.― Julian Barnes

4. Faulty logic; playing fast and loose with cause and effect.  See, for example, Cathcart & Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington. Examples: The slippery slope (Pool halls in Riverside lead to ____). “So’s your mother” – personal attacks or demonizing the opposition. Criticizing the process as a way of diverting attention from the substance of an issue. Conspiracy theories. Leaps of logic in asserting cause-and-effect relationships (e.g., speed bumps and pedestrian safety). Attempts to apply “common sense” reasoning to complex human and group behaviors. “Everybody knows that…”

Instead: Back up arguments by citing scientific research. Otherwise just stick to the facts.

When the meaning is unclear there is no meaning. ― Marty Rubin

5. Emotional appeals. “I am outraged…” “I am shocked…” “This is a travesty”  “We are appalled…”  It’s appropriate to be outraged by serious issues like genocide or other forms of physical abuse, but when someone refers to relatively mundane issues of public facilities or programs with the words “I am outraged,” it says more about their mental state and coping ability than it does about the issue. And emotional appeals can provoke a defensive or emotional response that does not contribute to useful public dialog.

Instead: Take a deep breath and try to keep emotion out of an argument; it increases the chance that your ideas will be heard.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. – H.L. Mencken

6. Sloppy use of pronouns. When people say, “we need to conserve more” or “we must___” what they really mean is “you need to conserve more”or “Other people must___.” The only person an individual can control is themselves, so exhortations of things that “we” should do are really aimed at others. And sometimes “you” isn’t appropriate either, as in referring to generations of human beings: “you took our ancestral home.” Really? I wasn’t alive in the 1600s and neither were you. Or the proverbial “they,” as in “they always do this to us.” Sloppy use of “we” and “you” pronouns invokes the worst of tribalism and works against constructive dialog by creating artificial divisions.

Instead: If you want other people to do something, say it: “I compost my food waste, and I think other people should too.”  Be specific. Instead of “they have really messed up traffic,” say “the changes to the intersection made by the State Department of Transportation have increased wait times on the eastbound street.” And avoid “you” altogether; it’s a verbal poke in the eye. 

---

Author: Scott Lazenby, Ph.D., is city manager of Lake Oswego, Oregon. Email: [email protected]

(6 votes, average: 3.83 out of 5)
Loading...