In the United States of the 1980s, there were many conflicts surrounding the abortion debates. The tension was such that clinics that provided services linked to this agenda were often invaded, plundered and set on fire. The debate didn’t move forward because people were so polarized for and against abortion that they couldn’t even share the same space to try to dialogue. There was the pro-life

group, against abortion, defending the right of children to be born, and there was the pro-choice group, defending the right of

mothers to choose to terminate their pregnancies if they deemed it necessary. Both sides protested for their rights and one considered the other misguided, malicious, dishonest, bad. Anyway, they were essentially enemies. In this atmosphere, violence increased with each demonstration or protest.

Many social dilemmas cannot simply be understood as right or wrong. There are many layers and varying perspectives to take into account, as what works in one case may not apply to the other. There is a tendency to sympathize with or understand only those with whom we agree. That is, if I can see “meaning” or “reason” in the agendas and pains of the other, their struggles, rights and demands become valid for me. Otherwise, no.

The Public Conversation Project is a successful example of how we can proceed in very “polarized” situations, in which we see “enemies” rather than interlocutors. As much as you disagree with someone’s position in a debate, there’s no way to disagree with their personal life story. The following are some steps in the mediation dialogue that can work in multiple contexts.

• 1)
  Is there anything you want to share with the group about your life experiences that can help others understand your thoughts and feelings on the topic?
  
• 2) What’s the main point of the question for you? What is most important and touches you the most?
• 3) Talk about any conflict of values, “gray areas,” or uncertainties you felt while thinking about it. For example, think of a time when values that are very important to you conflicted with other equally important values, or when you felt pulled in two different directions.

Get to know your interlocutor beyond the subject that generates divergence. Even being an antagonist, this person is a human being with other interests, experiences, affections, dreams, values. Can you identify in the person something that you can understand or even appreciate? Is there anything in common between you?

The conceptions and positions we have in life are intimately linked to our personal history. Therefore, different stories produce different values. Find out about the life story of the interlocutor in relation to the topic discussed. This can go a long way toward humanizing tensions and undoing the image of “enemies.”

If you both feel safe and comfortable, talk about uncertainty. With a little patience and openness, people can usually talk about their dilemmas and doubts about topics on which they previously held unquestionable certainties. Remember: it is possible to understand and disagree at the same time.