AAA Response: What's Wrong with Persuasion?

sh(A)ne asks of me:

I'm curious: What is it that you see as negative about "persuasion"? I've always thought of it as no different than "education", though the latter connotes an absence of bias, which I think is kind-of unrealistic. I'm often engaged in what I’d call "persuasion", though I'm always simultaneously open to being persuaded myself. I sometimes think I'd rather be proven wrong, because that means I will have learned something new.

An excellent first volley, sh(A)ne; thank you! I'll do my best to tease apart the important threads I see running through your comments.

First, to answer your specific question: I don't think persuasion is inherently negative. It's the primary means by which one can (knowingly and/or deliberately, or otherwise) influence another's thinking. To my mind, though, exchanges between individuals have very different characteristics, depending in part upon the participants' goals. Here's an example, to illustrate the difference I had in mind in the post where you asked this question.

When two individuals are casually talking -- just kicking ideas back and forth -- the conversation requires a good deal of focus upon what the other is saying. It's very difficult to keep the flow moving if one becomes more involved in the thoughts in his or her head than actively attending to what the other person is saying. A person's response, to be helpful, needs to acknowledge at least in some small way what the other speaker has just said, or reference something already said if the intention is to revisit an idea.

If, however, such a conversation becomes an attempt at persuasion, in my experience its tenor becomes much altered. Instead of being relaxed, a tension develops, as one builds his or her case and the other evaluates the points being made. One participant is much more like the offense in a sports game, and while the other may not be pure defense, it's still the case that the conversation has become more adversarial. This is particularly true if the persuadee isn't interested in being persuaded on the subject. The exchange has also shifted to a leader-follower structure, instead of both participants sometimes leading, sometimes following.

The result is usually a decline in active listening to the other, and a shift inward, along the lines of How can I make my point better?; Is there a good example I can use to support this argument?; Can I move this to a subject where I know [other participant] is more sympathetic to my views? in the persuador, and possible thoughts of That's bullshit; and here's why!; Okay, if I assume [persuador] is right, then what about this case?; Oh no, not again! Every time we get on this subject, [persuador] starts shoving this crap at me! in the persuadee. The result is much more a talking at one another, rather than talking to or with another.

So, what I see as negative about this kind of persuasion is that it's not as deep an engagement of the other's ideas; it's an adversarial mental sparring. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either; I like a good debate myself from time to time. But often, the shift from kicking around ideas to attempted persuasion is subtle and sudden, and it can transform a fruitful, interesting conversation into two frustrated people talking past each other, or worse. When each person becomes more focused on spreading his message than grokking the other's, the exchange has devolved. (As an aside, I think that the common American style of conversation -- fast, with short or no pauses between speakers' utterances -- encourages this "talking past" dynamic. There's little time to actively listen and consider, then form one's reply.)

In my mind, education and persuasion are quite different (although not unrelated). It's certainly true that education is not unbiased -- a look at most public schools' curricula certainly bear that out. An individual can't be unbiased -- but he or she can do a lot to acknowledge those biases, and to try to separate information from opinion or other speculations on the basis of information. If someone asks me for information, I try to provide it as objectively as I can, and then ask the person questions to gauge his or understanding and interest in pursuing the topic further.

A definition of "educate" that I find particularly useful is "to develop the mind". Thus, an educator should be less interested in pushing his or her (or the state's) agenda, and more interested in helping the educatee evaluate information and develop his or her own ideas and opinions about it. The result of this kind of educational process is a concomitant development of critical thinking skills. They're essential for thinking, functional individuals.

It's certainly the case that education can be persuasive. For example, I'd think that it would be very difficult for an individual with integrity and true caring for fellow humans to continue to think state-run welfare programs actually help, after learning how much of the tax dollars directed to "welfare" actually go to its infrastructure rather than the needy. The distinction I'm trying to make is captured somewhat in the cliché about the horse and water -- an educator leads a thirsty horse to the water it needs and encourages it to drink as desired; a persuador tries to make it drink the water he or she thinks it needs.

Regarding being shown wrong, I defer to someone who put it much better than I could:

What this suggests, then, is that we learn more when our minds are uncertain than when we trust in settled conclusions and that continuing doubt fosters understanding. Many of us have, at one time or another, faced some crisis in our life in which we no longer had confidence in our prior learning, attitudes, or commitments. .... Such crises, however, have often proven to be periods of "creative chaos," during which major transformations occurred within us. Having lost our sense of certainty about what we knew, we had to rediscover much of our world. .... When we do not know something, we energize our minds to learn. When we are certain in our knowledge, on the other hand, we no longer inquire. It is in spontaneity and exploration -- not rigid adherence to fixed truths -- that our minds are best able to understand reality. [Butler Shaffer, Calculated Chaos, pp. 85-86, all emphasis in original; see my review if you're interested]

Tying this back in to anarchism and voluntaryism, then, I'm much more interested in educating than in persuading, in the senses of those verbs I gave above. Each person has a unique context and a unique constellation of needs, desires, and experience. The best any other person can do is to be available and willing to work with another when invited. (And yes, that can include deliberate attempts at persuasion.)