Why Can’t We Talk to Each Other Anymore?

I wrote in December about the Covid-related attitudes I’ve been seeing recently as a researcher. Thanks for all your responses.  I’ve also written two posts recently about civility and have received lots of interesting feedback about them. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re on edge because of Covid and that it has become difficult to have civil conversations nowadays.

In conducting qualitative research recently and following current events around the world, I’ve come to see that it’s getting harder to discuss things we used to be able to talk about. This is an urgent issue for qualitative researchers, as conversation is our stock in trade. In fact, it’s urgent for everybody. What’s changed? We’re in an age of what I’ve started calling ‘hyper-morality’ – when we carry moral considerations to an extreme.

For instance, liberty is a fundamental moral value. It’s the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and is what makes these documents so remarkable. However, liberty must be balanced with responsibility—our rights to pursue our own interests sometimes must be subordinated to the needs of others, and sometimes group needs must take a back seat to individual needs. If you look at the most intractable issues in the world today, you’ll see extreme views about liberty and responsibility on both sides of the argument.

Here’s another example. Loyalty is a virtue, whether it be to family, social group, political tribe or what have you. However, it’s possible to place such emphasis on loyalty that we end up endorsing actions or opinions inconsistent with our own values. That’s what happens when a legitimate moral concern gets elevated to an unreasonable level.

Conflicting moral views are at the heart of most difficult issues, and that’s what makes them tricky – think vaccinations, taxes, guns, or plant-based diets. Intelligent, empathetic adults should be able to work through these challenges and have productive conversations. But when morality gets ‘turned up to eleven,’ all bets are off. There’s probably no way to have a productive conversation when hyper-morality is present.

To be functioning humans, we must find a way to balance moral considerations. For instance, while you might place a high value on your own freedoms, it’s necessary to balance that against your responsibility not to harm others. And, while you might give great weight to loyalty, it’s important to remember that you also have a responsibility to think for yourself. This all sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that, in a hyper-moralized world, balance goes out the window.

How did we get here? I’m blaming cable news, talk radio and social media for this—the most extreme, controversial, even offensive positions are the ones that get the most attention. There’s no room for thoughtful, respectful dialogue, let alone empathy. We’ve been marinating in this toxic environment for several years now, and it’s affected how we see and talk about things. When influential figures are modeling hyper-morality, it’s challenging for the rest of us to act like adults.

So now what? Hell, if I know. My only suggestion is to think globally and act locally—the world’s a big place, and there’s a limit to how much you can change it, but you can influence your own community. None of us has much ability to influence how prominent figures conduct themselves, but we can set an example of rational behavior for others. In order to do this, it might be necessary for each of us to look inward to see if we are hyper-moralizing ourselves.

And, if you’re a qualitative researcher, how do you negotiate these treacherous waters?

First, resist the natural inclination to judge others for holding opinions contrary to yours.

Secondly, do whatever you can to avoid sensitive topics – if that’s feasible. There’s nothing wrong with overtly cutting off a discussion that you think might get acrimonious.

If you think sensitive topics are likely to come up, and you’re worried this might compromise the quality of conversation, consider conducting one-on-one interviews instead of focus groups. That way, the only person your participant can argue with is you.

If you must do groups, it might be a good idea to avoid putting participants who have divergent opinions on sensitive issues in the same session.

It makes me sad that I felt it necessary to write about this topic. However, in adversity lies opportunity. Hopefully, this fraught time will enable us to develop more empathy and strengthen our conversation skills.