By Sara Copic, DCI Assistant Director
It’s a commonplace saying in American culture that we shouldn’t talk about politics at family gatherings. And though American political polarization is nothing new, recent Israeli military raids in Gaza in response to the October 7th Hamas attack in Israel have the potential to deepen our political divides and leave us feeling more emotionally reactive, more prone to blaming one another, and potentially less willing to spend time together at Thanksgiving. Recent landmark Supreme Court rulings, former President Donald Trump’s ongoing trials, and an upcoming presidential election make the political stakes feel even higher.
What practices or intentions might help us have a Thanksgiving that connects us with our families, communities, and friends—and what should we leave at the door? One thing we have control over and that can help us connect is the practice of approaching a disagreement with genuine curiosity.
All too often, when we get into a discussion about a social or political problem, we fall into a debate—you have your reasons, I have mine, now let’s figure out who’s right and who’s wrong. But if we’re gathering to connect, as we hope to do at Thanksgiving, debate is likely not the right tool for the occasion. Instead, asking how someone came to hold their beliefs and why those beliefs are so important to them with openness and curiosity can better aid connection.
There’s a fine line between asking “why do you think that?” in the spirit of debate and in the spirit of curiosity. But asking questions that aim toward understanding rather than adversarial debate can show someone you really care, rather than that you’re looking for a fight. One way to show genuine curiosity is not to follow up on those questions right away with opposing positions and arguments, but to sit with where the other person is coming from. Making space for their beliefs without arguing against them can be a way of showing acceptance for someone as a person, even if you ultimately disagree with her worldview.
An objector might ask, “But what if I find my family members’ views morally problematic? What if what they advocate is, in my opinion, unjust?” The idea here may be that we must—perhaps for reasons of moral integrity, or for the sake of doing the right thing—disabuse our family and friends of the problematic views they hold. Indeed, we shouldn’t simply let a disagreement lie indefinitely or condone a serious injustice where we see it. But might it be possible and even preferable to leave the business of moral and political argumentation aside in some contexts so that we may foster a mutual care for each other, and lay the foundation for more productive disagreements in the future? By approaching our deep disagreements with curiosity first, we may be able to build the trust needed in order to have the hard conversations we would like to have together.
If this approach resonates with you, or you would like to learn more about it, check out some of our programming from this semester in which Christy Vines explains the idea of empathic intelligence and how to harness it to connect across our lines of difference.
Want more Thanksgiving inspiration? Check out posts by Carla Cole and Dalton Landon for more perspectives about how to approach holiday connection and conversation.
