Silencing somebody won’t change their view
When you want to win hearts and minds on the road to change, sometimes you can gain the most ground by engaging with the people who support you the least.
By Neil Pharaoh
With the rise of social media, and polarised discussion leading to some topical issues in the for-purpose sector becoming hot potatoes, we need to exercise caution that we let everyone air their views, even if they may be on the wrong side of history.
Free speech is a curious thing, with both left and right wing arguments as to where we need to draw the line. Some say hate speech, others say incitements to violence, some believe we should have no restrictions at all.
As state and federal governments in Australia navigate this path, election results may move the line. But there is a broader challenge in the social movement though, which runs parallel to free speech; trying to balance views which may be “offensive” versus allowing them to be “aired” in order to progress a discussion or argument.
Let’s take the area I spent a long time campaigning in, around LGBTIQ+ rights - not just marriage equality, but a whole series of reforms around health, education, and beyond for the rainbow community. During this time (2007-2014) I made a conscious effort to ensure that half my advocacy was focused on groups I knew disagreed with me. I presented to various Catholic missions, to religious groups across the spectrum, and to those who had been openly critical of LGBTIQ+ rights and reforms.
Why? Because I (and thousands of others) were determined to show that LGBTIQ+ people are here, we are like everybody else, we live in diverse communities and have different views.
For many of the groups I spoke to and met, they had not had many interactions with LGBTIQ+ people, or their views may have been skewed by the media, or prejudice. To me, it didn’t matter. I was determined that while I might not be able to get them to support all the issues I cared about, I knew that meeting them, talking to them, and finding what we did agree upon, would help soften their views of the LGBTIQ+ community. In the arc of history it did and many people I spoke to moved from adverse to neutral, or neutral to positive in their view of LGBTIQ+ people.
As we approach a number of other key social milestones in the next year, we must keep in mind the need to not make people feel like they can’t share their views with others. Keeping views to oneself, or sharing them only in a circle of people who agree only amplifies any prejudices, issues, or biases we may have. Finding spaces to have uncomfortable discussions is by far the best option to shift hearts and minds.
I can now hear a number of readers groan; often it is people who hold real positions of power or influence who claim to be being silenced on social issues. I fully agree they hold power and sway, and all things being equal they have their soapboxes which are far larger than often minority communities seeking any change or share of that voice, let alone the opportunity to spout their views in a full page in tabloid papers.
As a famous US jurist and Supreme Court judge once said, “to those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” A great line with which I agree, but it doesn’t help us shift hearts and minds on hot button issues.
Which brings me to the elephant in the room. This federal election cycle all Australians will be asked to vote on the Voice, and next term, assuming Labor holds government, we will be voting again most probably on whether Australia should become a republic. For what it is worth, I am personally supportive of both of these, but I also know that support across the general community, in particular the middle or swing voters is soft at best.
The context is that Australia has not changed its constitution since 1977 - almost five decades. Labor in government has only secured one successful referendum change, in 1946, handing a number of powers around social welfare to the Commonwealth. So, of the eight referendums that have passed in Australia (out of 44), only one has been passed under a federal Labor government. The odds are low. Bob Hawke tried six times (all failed) and Chifley lost two other proposed changes at the same time as he got one up in 1946.
With this context in mind, we need to be much more willing to air voices of those who disagree on the Voice. I have a huge number of family and friends who are unsure of the Voice. They are not inherently racist, many come from migrant backgrounds, some want more information, some just don’t understand the issues, all have questions, but the vast majority who are genuinely unsure across rural, regional and metro Australia want some form of recognition for First Nations peoples.
But they feel that if they ask any questions, or are cautious about any element they will be labelled or attacked. From experience on other big social issues, where a minority is asking the majority to support them on an issue (LGBTIQ+ rights, marriage equality, etc.) the single best thing we can do to ensure a successful outcome is to allow space to air concerns and disagreements.
Even those who hold extreme views assisted in securing a yes vote; the vitriolic grandstanding from religious leaders during marriage equality actually convinced a number of Australians to support marriage equality, where they may have otherwise been hesitant. Remember, extremists make others look moderate.
So while I have focused on the Voice, this logic applies also to many other social issues we all campaign on, issues like health, education, environment, and beyond. I sit firmly on the left of centre, but I know the majority of Australians may not. Allowing those who disagree with me to speak is the first step in changing their mind, or their position.
During marriage equality I was told that telling somebody they were homophobic will never change their view on the issue, which holds firm. If I call somebody homophobic, they are not going to self-assess and say “yes Neil, you are right, I am a homophobe”. It’s simply not human nature.
Likewise, if I call somebody racist, sexist or anything else, will the name calling change their mind? Not likely. Acknowledging this reality and addressing it strategically will be critical and key to navigating big social reforms. And the Voice will be the first cab off the rank.
This article first appeared at Pro Bono Australia as part of Tanck's fortnightly column, Happenings on the Hill.
Tanck offers advisory services in government relations, stakeholder strategy, and communications.
We specialise in helping for-purpose organisations to effectively advocate for their causes. Find out how we can help you!
