Public discourse is communication directed at a
broad audience, across local, regional, national and
even international boundaries. From the point of
view of a conflict resolution practitioner, effective
public discourse communicates clearly and directly
to its audience about issues of common concern,
in such a way that the communication furthers
positive and constructive dialogue as the basis for
productive and creative resolution of conflicts that
may divide that public.
Effective discourse has certain distinguishing
characteristics. It is respectful communication. It
begins with a clear, concise identification of relevant facts. It includes a disclosure of the personal
relationship of speakers to the issue, and their
feelings about the issue, expressed in “I” statements by which speakers take responsibility for
their own perspectives. At the same time, speakers attempt also to anticipate the perspective of
the audience, which may differ from their own, to
allow the possibility of a reasoned response. When
a response is made, speakers use paraphrasing and summarizing statements to present their
understanding of the responses and allow room
for further clarification.
Contemporary public discourse appears to be
falling ever further from this standard. We see
such tactics from all sides as deliberate perpetuation of misinformation; blaming, name-calling,
sarcasm, belittling, stereotyping, threatening—all
of which we know contribute to the perpetuation
and escalation of conflict that is destructive and
harmful to people and relationships.
Negative public discourse from the angry
right wing of the political spectrum has become
increasingly conspicuous. We have seen the rise
of publications that appear to be deliberately provocative. We have also seen the proliferation of
so-called anonymous trolls in public discourse,
who comment on items of public controversy,
often in the most vitriolic of terms, without taking personal responsibility for their remarks. The
president engages in name-calling, sarcasm and
blaming on an almost daily basis, on social media
and elsewhere.
Finding examples of destructive public commen-
tary can be like dipping into a swift-flowing, polluted
river. Examples of on-line vituperation can be found
almost anywhere. I will focus for the rest of this
piece on the conflict over so-called “gay rights.”
One example involves responses to an Absolut
Vodka commercial, in which two people of the same
gender, kiss, and then their lips turn into the colors of
the rainbow, under the heading: Kiss with Pride.
Numerous comments followed:
“See the same gay idiots abusing everyone
on here… so much so equal rights, hey! More
like give us more rights because we are the
selfish sexuality that cares about ourselves
and no-one else,”
“One way to get people to be alcohol-free.
Just have it associated with pride.” another
responded sarcastically. The following
response focuses on name-calling:
“Why do you taint the honored tradition of
alcohol with queers? This truly riles me up. I’ll
never be buying Absolut again.” There were
many more like this, that contributed nothing
to the possibility of a constructive dialogue on
an important issue.
About the Authors
PAUL
REDEKOP
is Associate Professor of Conflict
Resolution Studies,
at Menno Simons
College of the
University of Winnipeg. He is the
author of several
books on conflict
resolution, including Changing Paradigms: Punishment
and restorative
discipline.
by
Paul Redekop
Toward a Constructive
Public Discourse
Negative public discourse from the angry
right wing of the political spectrum has
become increasingly conspicuous. We
have seen the rise of publications that
appear to be deliberately provocative.
We have also seen the proliferation of
so-called anonymous trolls in public
discourse, who comment on items of
public controversy, often in the most
vitriolic of terms, without taking personal
responsibility for their remarks.
REFLECTIONS AN
