In his new book, Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Jewish Art of Constructive Disagreement, Daniel Taub – Israeli peace negotiator and former ambassador to the United Kingdom – draws from Jewish tradition, conflict resolution theory, and his own experience as a mediator in suggesting ways to have more productive conversations.
In the extract below, Taub weighs whether there are times when some conversations are best avoided.
From ‘Beyond Dispute’
Do all positions and ideas deserve a hearing? Are there opinions that are so objectionable or ridiculous that they should fall outside the parameters of legitimate debate?
In Jewish terms, one might frame the question slightly differently. A tradition teaches that there are 70 faces to the Torah; that is, a multiplicity of interpretations and positions that all have their own validity. But this doesn’t mean that there cannot be a 71st face, a position that is invalid. How can we determine whether a position is one of the 70 legitimate ones, or a 71st that should be discarded?
The thrust of the Jewish approach to argument is clear: When in doubt, hear them out.
In traditional Jewish thinking, closed minds are far more of a danger than open ones. While in the course of Jewish history there have been cases of excommunication – a form of canceling radical opinions – this is almost universally seen as an exceptional measure, one to be discouraged.
Underpinning the Jewish approach is the understanding that things that seem outrageous and unacceptable may indeed be so, but not necessarily at all times and in all contexts.
Jewish tradition preserves and cherishes minority opinions, the rejected viewpoints, because there may come a day or a different situation in which that opinion will need to be relied upon. Many differences can be resolved, or at least mitigated, if we apply what Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has termed the “chronological imagination.”
Over the course of Jewish history, some debates between different sects have been so furious that they have led to excommunication and even the burning of books belonging to the other side. This is one reason why entering a Jewish library today is such a moving experience. On the shelves, the books of the different factions now sit peaceably side by side, together adding to the depository of Jewish knowledge.
The rationalist approach of the Vilna Gaon, and the radical hassidic teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, for example, may have incited rejection, book-burning, and violence in their own day, but 300 years later they are in dialogue.
Beyond extreme cases of fomenting unrest and upheaval, the one instance in which Jewish tradition does have sympathy for declaring positions out of bounds is when the person proposing that position doesn’t accept the rules of the discussion. In other words, the objection is founded not in the content of the position but in a rejection of the process of debate.
Contemporary writer Ian Leslie makes the point in his book Conflicted:
“I don’t think we can say that some people are impossible to engage with the basis of the views they hold. What I do believe, though, is that some people are impossible to engage with because of the way they disagree.”
As Leslie notes, it is often difficult to identify people who are open to a genuine debate in advance, not least because they frequently don’t admit it to themselves.
One simple litmus test that can be helpful is to ask participants in a debate to offer a brief summary of the argument of the opposition. It’s surprising how difficult people who are irrevocably entrenched in their own position find it to do this, though it’s an elementary aspect of having a constructive conversation.
Negotiation expert William Ury quotes a medieval saying that makes the point:
“You are perfectly entitled to disagree with someone once you can state their case to their own satisfaction.”
Making a distinction between content and process can be helpful to us in dealing with some of today’s most contentious debates.
In recent years, the debates between pro- and anti-vaccine advocates have become highly charged, especially when, during the COVID-19 outbreak, anti-vaccine activists were seen not only as endangering themselves but also society at large.
Similarly, debates over Brexit, gun control, or the environment are stoked by the assurance that “our” side is protecting livelihoods, personal safety, and the globe itself, while “their” side is set on destroying them.
How can we defuse at least some of the tension in these debates?
One way, in line with the rabbis’ approach, would be to focus, in the first instance at least, not on the substance of the debate but the process.
People who insist that no evidence whatsoever could persuade them to change their mind are effectively rejecting the process of debate. They do not hold an opinion so much as hold to an article of faith. As Jonathan Swift advised: “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”
In the world of peace negotiations, it is often said that “Peace is made between enemies.” That might be true, but not entirely.
In fact, peace is made between enemies who are at least open to making peace with each other. Implacable enemies are unlikely to reach peace. So, too, implacable disputants.
BEYOND DISPUTE:
REDISCOVERING THE JEWISH ART OF CONSTRUCTIVE DISAGREEMENT
By Daniel Taub
Hodder & Stoughton
269 pages; $16