Family dinners are much of the “glue” that holds my family together. The picture in today’s header was not taken at a Thanksgiving gathering but it is an excellent representation of the many gatherings around my mother’s table that I cherish in memory. This picture from 2010 shows my mother and father with me in the foreground at the head of the table. To the left are my oldest son, his wife, and my granddaughter. Behind me is my wife, and behind her is my youngest sister and her husband. My first advice for Thanksgiving is to take lots of pictures. I can’t remember who took this picture. I may well have been the photographer, using a timer and a tripod.

 

If all my siblings, their spouses, their children, their children’s spouses, and their grandchildren had been present, as they are at weddings and funerals, there would have been almost thirty people in this picture. I think it is highly unlikely that thirty people from three generations, seven states, and an age distribution of well over fifty years would all be of the same mind. It is amazing to me how fast people of “different” minds can hone in on what it is that divides them when they suddenly are thrown together for the first time in months or years by a family event. 

 

I frequently hear that the best tactic to use in conversation over the family dinner table is to avoid discussions of politics and religion. The idea goes on to suggest that sports and the weather are “safer” subjects. Sports have not worked for some time in my family because of the rivalries between Alabama and Auburn, and Georgia Tech and Georgia. As a former South Carolina Gamecock I don’t favor any of those four teams and stand alone. I won’t be in any football conversations this Thanksgiving because my wife and I are staying near home with friends, but I can imagine that somewhere there will be families who avoid politics and religion and end up in bitter disputes over whether or not Georgia and/or Alabama belongs in the playoffs for the National Championship. String theory versus quantum physics may be easier to understand than the process to choose the four teams that will compete. Any discussion of the weather these days will quickly descend into politics and religion through the pathway of global warming. If your position is that global warming is a function of the use of carbon based fuels and products, then your next stop is Republican politics, and that is a superhighway that rapidly brings you to the affinity that “Evangelicals” have for the president. Weather is now a shortcut to politics and religion. 

 

Since everything seems to be connected to everything, and since it is true that the most innocent statement of personal preference or opinion can end up dividing you from people with whom you theoretically have a lot in common, what is a caring person to do? Before you say “bite” your tongue and sweat it out, let’s consider how to approach a meaningful dialog. I have been asking myself these questions for a while now, and I was delighted to find a good piece of advice in the New York Times this week. This time of year it’s easy to find “advice” articles in the papers and on the Internet about everything including great dishes and decorations for the holidays. So, why not look for articles about what to say, or not to say, as you pass the turkey and stuffing around the table. 

 

The titles for newspaper pieces seem to be getting longer as demonstrated by “How to Defuse Tension at the Dinner Table During the Holidays. We’re not saying it’s going to happen … but just in case.” That is a twenty two word title, depending on how you count contractions, but the 1140 word article by Anna Goldfarb that follows the title is worth some review. 

 

She begins by suggesting that travel “snags” could get your event off to a poor start, but let’s hope that is not going to be your experience. The fact remains that the day will likely be a challenge since:

 

“We often say things I think that we don’t really mean or that we wished we hadn’t said.”

 

She reassures us that if strife occurs, we should not be upset since it occurs commonly and in the best of families. She adds advice to reassurance:

 

It’s understandable to feel exasperated when relatives yell, criticize or make snide comments, but you have more power in the situation than you might realize. The key is to remember that you can’t control another person.

 

She quotes an expert:

 

“You may wish that you had a better dad or a cousin who is less obnoxious, but you ultimately can’t force them to behave the way you want,” Ms. Gallo said. “The only thing you really control is your reaction and your behavior.”

 

Then she speaks as if she is an expert neurophysiologist:

 

Understanding what’s going on in your brain is the first step to taking back control. When you feel threatened, you’re liable to slip into what emotional intelligence experts call “amygdala hijacking” — that feeling when you’re emotionally overwhelmed and you don’t make rational choices.

 

She is not a neurophysiologist, or a psychologist. She is a journalist and author who describes herself as someone who writes about relationships, careers and pop psychology. She is the author of a book with another long catchy title: Clearly, I Didn’t Think This Through: The Story of One Tall Girl’s Impulsive, Ill-Conceived, and Borderline Irresponsible Life Decisions.

 

As you might expect she offers bullet points for your consideration with the hope that her advice might help you steer safely through the turbulent waters of a family holiday event.  Her list is worth your attention, if you like the list go to the article with the link above because each point has links to useful literature:

 

• Have a game plan. Pinpoint what behaviors and topics are likely to set you off. Once you do, prepare for those scenarios so you stay calm.

 

• Have a goal in mind. It’ll be easier to get through the meal if you know what success looks like,….Is your objective to change your argumentative uncle’s political views? That’s unlikely to happen, sorry to say. A more realistic goal is to walk away at the end of the dinner feeling as if you were thoughtful, respectful and fair. …If you feel yourself deviating from your plan, …ask yourself: How will I feel about this interaction tomorrow? How will I feel about this interaction next week? And then how will I feel about this interaction next year? This perspective shift will help rein in aggressive or combative impulses.

 

• Make small talk. Ask people questions about themselves and their personal accomplishments…arrive prepared with information you’ve learned about your relatives that they would want to share. Perhaps you can scan social media feeds beforehand to mine potential conversation fodder like recent milestones, purchases or trips…[Be] prepared to pivot rather than trying to go toe-to-toe with an individual to express your point or refute theirs instead…instead of answering a pointed question about your political leanings, see if you can steer the conversation into safer territory… [This suggestion seems too calculating for me, perhaps it requires generational skills and understanding that I do not possess. Pivoting and “Whataboutism” are core competencies practiced by some politicians.]

 

• Recruit an ally. Bringing along someone who’s not really involved in a family conflict can help defuse the tension, …(a significant other, a friend, even a favorite co-worker) be a support system for you, but their presence might encourage others to be on their best behavior as well. Maybe there’s already someone in your family unit you can join forces with. “Usually there’s someone else around the dinner table or sitting around in the living room that can join you in changing the conversation or will say to you, ‘Hey, why don’t you come with me while I cut the cake?” …Find that person and keep them close.

 

• Take care of yourself. If you feel as if you’ve spread yourself too thin — agreeing to attend too many events, trying to entertain too many people — your fuse might be significantly shorter. It’s important to monitor your well-being because you’ll be better able to deal with the stressful things outside your control. [She quotes an expert] …[There is a…] concept called HALT, which stands for hungry, angry, lonely or tired, all of which are states that can make a person overreact or be irritable. Self-assess to see if you’re in any of those states before you engage with a difficult person or scenario.

 

• Grab physical (or mental) space. If things are getting too heated, turn your attention to another person in attendance, or a child or pet. You can also excuse yourself and head to another part of the house or even take a few moments to step outside. If you can’t physically leave, at least give yourself time before you respond to sharp comments….A little light at the end of the tunnel: …relationships usually get better as we age because as we grow older, we become more invested in maintaining our close and emotionally significant ties.

 

Perhaps the list sounds a little contrived. Maybe “pop psychology” is the genre that best describes the advice. The uncomfortable experiences that we have within the diversity of our families and close acquaintances are a subset of the differences that we experience within our communities. Perhaps the only real difference between the two is that we feel some obligation to try to find a way to register a different opinion within our tighter circles of family and friends. 

 

We are all aware of the reality that the issues that we try to live with for a few hours a few times a year with family members are the same issues that divide us as a nation. I frequently hear people describe our greatest problem as our inability to have civil discourse about the issues of our times. There is a lot of finger pointing. Those who lean “blue” point their accusing finger at those who lean “red” and visa versa. Those who lean “red” have become masterful in their ability to conceptualize theories that both counter the charges of the “blues,” and up the ante by accusing the “blues” of being the forerunners of a slide into socialism and the destroyers of the very values and the core principles upon which all of our accomplishments have been built. The “blue leaners” are convinced that the “red” leaners are facilitating the emergence of a fascist state that will trash the Constitution, the environment, and human rights to the advantage of the rich. There are examples in the news every day of our ongoing inability to effectively communicate across an ever widening divide.

 

When, following the white supremacy demonstrations in Richmond in 2017, the president assessed that there were “good people on both sides,” most of the people with whom I can easily agree shared my outrage. Two years later, we are numb from the daily bombardment of our sense of acceptable norms, and realization that we live in a “post truth” world. I am not going to accept that “white supremacy” is a mindset that fits with the optimal behaviors described in the “Sermon on the Mount” or is consistent with the core principles that we have been struggling since 1776 to turn from aspirational vision to reality. That said, it would be wrong to vilify everything about people whose attitudes arise from opinions that are different than mine. It is easy to see that if we have lost our ability to engage in productive dialog within the framework of the rules described in the Constitution and accepted social norms, we have a problem of a magnitude and power that could destroy almost 250 years of slow and painful progress. 

 

One hopeful sign is that there are people who have come together in organizations like Better Angels to promote a more effective dialog across the red/blue divide. The principles and processes that they support are an encouraging sign, and a reason to have a little hope. The organization tries to draw membership from both the “red” and “blue” camps and also offers potential participants the option of being neutral. They are succinct in their description of the problem they are trying to ameliorate:

 

The Problem of Polarization

 

Political polarization did not start with the 2016 election — it’s been gaining momentum for over 20 years. But with the rancor and divisiveness that has been on display in recent years, polarization may have reached its worst level in the United States since the Civil War.

Today, many believe that their political adversaries are not simply misguided, but that they are also bad people whose ways of thinking are both dangerous and incomprehensible. As Charles Krauthammer once noted, “Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, Liberals think Conservatives are evil!”

The Pew Research Center, which has been measuring political polarization in the United States since 1994, recently found that the average partisan gap has increased from 15 percentage points to 36 points.

 

As a measure of my support to the work they are trying to do, I have joined the organization and made a contribution. 

 

I was delighted to learn that they offer advice for “DEPOLARIZING THE THANKSGIVING CONVERSATION.” It’s a PDF that you might want to download. It’s advice has some similarities to Ms. Goldfarb’s New York Times piece but it goes beyond Thanksgiving by offering advice that you can practice all year long. Here are some insights along with my comments that Better Angels offers in the PDF.  The same link will connect you to a video, if you scroll to the bottom of the article. 

 

•  Virtually all religions share some abstraction of the Golden Rule, which is often stated as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That could not be more applicable here.  If you convey respect, curiosity, and openness, it tends to elicit the same from your conversation compatriots.

 

• It is important that all participants:  1) Listen actively to each other with listening that conveys to the speaker that they are being heard. 2) Set a constructive tone by speaking in a way that helps the listener hear you and not by dominating, offending, or pontificating. 3) Find common ground by establishing key issues on which you all can agree – problems to be solved and programs for the common good. Most people in a friend or family relationship have some common values and concerns that can be unearthed in a proper conversation.

 

 

• Try to learn about the perspectives, feelings, and experiences of someone you care about who differs from you politically. 

 

 

•  You cannot expect to persuade someone to change their core attitudes and beliefs. Your best hope should be to reach mutual understanding.

 

•  You should not expect that “facts” will be agreed on and that logic will be followed consistently in the course of conversation.  

 

•  Each participant in the conversation needs to save face. You must ensure that no one is portrayed  as stupid, blind, narrowly self-serving, or bigoted.

 

• Active Listening is listening in a way that the other person feels heard. It is a well-known and respected discipline that has been widely-employed in counseling, strategic planning, training, and conflict resolution. It requires that the listener fully concentrate, understand, respond, and then remember what is being said. 

 

The paper then summarizes the seven key Active Listening Skills as described by The Center for Creative Leadership: 

 

• Be Attentive

• Ask Open-Ended Questions

• Ask Probing Questions

• Request Clarification

• Paraphrase

• Be Attuned To and Reflect Feelings

• Summarize

 

The whole process is really simple, but it requires commitment and practice. Active listening skills are now taught to many medical professionals as core to the desire to be patient centered. I am not being facetious when I say that I wish that members of both our legislative and executive branches of government would try to develop these skills which are foundational to any successful attempt at “interest based negotiation.”

 

As I was thinking about the deep divide that exists at many family Thanksgiving gatherings that is a reflection of our profoundly riven society, I reminded myself of the powerful book written in 2012 by Jonathan Haidt who is an experimental psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. William Saletan reviewed Haidt’s 2012 book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion for the Sunday New York Times in a piece entitled “Why Won’t They Listen.” I have recommend the book in previous notes and letters to you, but I would suggest reading Saletan’s excellent summary before Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious brother-in-law or your uncle who will be wearing his MAGA hat with the hope of annoying you. Saletan points out that Haidt’s ideas are drawn from ethnography, evolutionary theory and experimental psychology. He writes:

 

In “The ­Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom. That’s what makes “The Righteous Mind” well worth reading. Politics isn’t just about ­manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.

 

Haidt’s ideas is that we have fundamental preferences that drive our attitudes. We misuse reason to defend and support our “natural” inclinations rather than using reason to determine our attitudes.  This concept, if true, explains a lot. Have you ever wondered why a poor man would vote for a politician who will cut welfare programs for the needy to give tax breaks to the ultra rich? Haidt offers plausible explanations, as well as strategies to promote progress and mutual understanding, that are highly aligned with the advice from Brighter Angels. As Saletan writes:

 

Haidt invokes an evolutionary hypothesis: We compete for social status, and the key advantage in this struggle is the ability to influence others. Reason, in this view, evolved to help us spin, not to help us learn. So if you want to change people’s minds, Haidt concludes, don’t appeal to their reason. Appeal to reason’s boss: the underlying moral intuitions whose conclusions reason defends.

 

Haidt offers formulations based on thousands of interviews that contrast the foundational orientations of the mind of those who have “red or conservative” tendencies and those who have ‘blue or progressive tendencies.” The Democrats should note that among American voters there are more people who test “red” than “blue.” Saletan writes:

 

He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

The worldviews Haidt discusses may differ from yours. They don’t start with the individual. They start with the group or the cosmic order. They exalt families, armies and communities. They assume that people should be treated differently according to social role or status — elders should be honored, subordinates should be protected. They suppress forms of self-expression that might weaken the social fabric. They assume interdependence, not autonomy. They prize order, not equality.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

 

Here is a startling fact:

 

And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

 

Haidt is a self described enlightened progressive. His goal is not to denigrate reason and enlightenment. His goal is to inform us of how to make progress in the preservation of the norms that will help us make social progress while avoiding a slide into either a fascist or socialist form of authoritarian government. Haidt wants to promote understanding and effective dialogue between people of different preferences so that we can all move forward together. There is no way that we will ever live to see the wide implementation of the changes necessary to make healthcare as a human right a permanent reality, or see the goals of the Triple Aim become a broadly shared concept unless and until we can negotiate bipartisan solutions across the deep chasm of misunderstanding and mistrust that divides us. Crossing the quality chasm in healthcare requires building bridges of understanding across the political and philosophical divisions in our country. It is a daunting challenge that demands that we all accept the fact that each of us is part of the problem, and that the world we say we want will require that we all learn from one another and be willing to participate in personal change. Perhaps the Thanksgiving table is a good place to begin our personal journeys of change. 

 

Put in Thanksgiving terms, some of us prefer the white meat of the breast while others want the drumstick. I like pecan pie and you prefer pumpkin pie. Our task then, is to organize the Thanksgiving table to accommodate us all. The Thanksgiving table might be a good place for red and blue alike to agree that each side has a lot to learn from and about the other side. Bon appetit!