by Rosa Zubizarreta-Ada

Helping liberal democracy survive and evolve. 

I am not assuming here that liberal democracy is any kind of “ultimate good” when it comes to possible governance systems. Yet while some may have thought that the best way to improve liberal democracy would be to begin by “tearing it all down”, many might be reconsidering this as we begin to see what that looks like. In the memorable words of Astra Taylor, “Democracy may not exist, but we’ll miss it when it’s gone.”[1] Clearly, we need to protect the rule of law, and the separation of powers, and the understanding that elected officials are not kings who can act with impunity.

At the same time, the answers are clearly not in “going back” … not in going back to the days of unquestioned privilege based on gender and skin color, and also, not in going back to  the kind of meritocracy that ignored blue collar workers and people living in rural areas. Yes, we clearly need to protect the aspects of democracy that we have come to take for granted, limited and imperfect as they may be– and, we need organized resistance to do so. At the same time, we also need to question whether it’s possible to achieve the goals of liberal democracy without some sort of concurrent economic democracy, and we need begin to imagine what that might look like. After all, if so many of us spend much of our time in workplaces where a few arbitrary decision-makers have power over the rest of us, how can people learn what it means to govern ourselves? Yet as worthy as these questions may be, I will not be exploring them here.

Instead, while taking it as a given that liberal democracy is an imperfect system worth protecting, AND, that it needs significant innovation in order to evolve, my focus here is on addressing one particular flaw in liberal democracy, one that has often been described as its “Achilles’ heel”. The problem goes something like this:  allowing free speech includes illiberal speech; yet allowing illiberal speech to proliferate creates a context where illiberal tendencies can grow, thus sowing seeds for the destruction of the liberal order.

I want to explore approaches for moving beyond this apparent paradox, approaches that have significant empirical evidence on their behalf. Yet implementing these approaches requires a great deal of patience and effort, as well as learning new ways of interacting with others beyond what is typically valued in our culture. Thus, there may be significant challenges to their widespread application.

Here’s one valuable thing we might gain from meeting these challenges: the same understandings that can help move past this apparent paradox, can also help us in the key work of building solidarity with one another. We know that “divide and conquer” is one of the oldest “laws” of politics; thus, learning how to disarm hate, while also working through internal conflicts and divisions, can help us to strengthen our societal “immune systems”, to build deeper connections with one another, and also, to create the possibility of greatly expanding our movements by creating “off-ramps for hate” as more and more people become disillusioned with the scapegoating narratives they have been sold.

Looking at the science. 

First, some context. Social psychologists have been hard at work exploring the limits to the Western emphasis on logical argumentation. We have seen, over and over again, that people don’t change their mind based on “facts”. Instead, research has shown that most of us engage in motivated reasoning much of the time[2].

It’s important to note that “motivated reasoning” is true not only of “others”, those people “over there” who have not the privilege of copious amounts of education. Instead, Thomas Kuhn’s work on the sociology of knowledge[3] points to how reasoning has its limits even among of those of us who are scientists; there have been numerous times when an allegiance to a particular world-view has prevented scientists from considering alternative explanations for the same set of empirical observations. While some may think that this only happened once or twice, long ago in some far distant past, others might recognize the hubris in that perspective.

Instead, we might acknowledge that motivated reasoning is ever-present, in a similar way to how Karl Mannheim described in the 1930’s that ideology is ever-present, regardless of our social position — though it clearly our perspective will differ depending on where we are standing.[4]  Speaking of which, the modern equivalent these days is standpoint theory[5] — the recognition that we are always “speaking from somewhere”, seeing the world through our particular history and social location.

At the same time, the pervasiveness of motivated reasoning does NOT mean that it’s impossible for people to change their minds through honest and ethical means. (Since I am focused on honest and ethical means here, that rules out most advertising, as well as all kinds of untruthful, fear-mongering political campaigns. ??  The inherent limitations of reason also do NOT mean that we can’t arrive at useful truths together, even when we are starting from very different positions.

It’s true that Thomas Kuhn was pessimistic about the possibility of scientists changing their minds; he thought that entrenched scientific paradigms eventually shift, largely due to the believers in the older paradigm dying off, rather than from their coming around to adopting new perspectives. Yet we have solid grounds for a more hopeful view of human beings, one that includes the possibility that we can change and grow to have more inclusive perspectives. For one thing, we can consider some recent social psychology research on the outcomes of the practice of Deep Canvassing[6]. In this model, canvassers are trained to ask open-ended questions and to listen at length to residents’ stories, before sharing their own personal stories related to the issue at hand. Repeated studies have shown that these respectful and non-judgmental interactions lead to a significant number of long-lasting changes in perspective toward more inclusive and compassionate stances.[7]

These findings from deep canvassing align with what we can observe from documented instances of deradicalization – the process by which people with violent views toward certain “others”, begin to consider more inclusive ways of seeing the world.  In case[8] after case[9] after case[10], we find that when humans with extremist beliefs have the opportunity to participate in caring interactions with diverse others, this leads to beneficial effects.  We find repeated instances that illustrate a very specific pattern: when people holding rigid belief structures are treated with care and respect, while also having the opportunity to come into contact with other points of view, they begin to connect with their own curiosity and to explore the world beyond previous narrow frames. Again, given that the oldest law in politics is “divide and conquer”, we might consider how we might usefully apply this knowledge about reducing polarization and hatred.

Making helpful distinctions. 

Clearly, engaging in one-on-one or small-group caring and open-minded interactions, is not the same thing at all, as giving someone with illiberal views a stage or a megaphone. At the same time, while these non-judgmental one-on-one or small-group interactions are powerful, they are not a panacea. in their research on Deep Canvassing, Kalla and Broockman point out the tension between what works at the individual level on the one hand, and what works at the societal level on the other. These researchers emphasize that “negative sanctions for exclusionary behaviors” (such as laws against hate speech) have been shown to be effective for changing behavior at a societal level. However, while these laws and sanctions may be necessary to address problematic behavior, these same consequences do not appear to affect underlying attitudes.[11]

Clearly, both are important; many of us support laws that encourage people to refrain from harmful behavior. At the same time, many of us also want to support inner change: we want to help people grow out of hateful beliefs. What Kalla and Broockman are pointing out is that while these two goals may be complementary, they each require distinct approaches.

The valuable questions of what constitutes “hate speech”, which speakers should be allowed on campus, and in what kind of formats, are beyond my scope here. I am merely wanting to underline that, in the context of a one-on-one conversation or a small group where each person is being heard, it can be a healing experience for someone to be able to express their personal views, however objectionable, without becoming the target of censure and condemnation. I want to point out that this is not at all the same thing as, “offering a stage” to someone with extremist views. When we conflate these two very different scenarios, we are making a tragic mistake; we become blind to the possibility of real growth and healing resulting from free expression in a small-group supportive context where participants can encounter a wide variety of perspectives.

Another helpful distinction has to do with the purpose of empathic communication. Some people may believe that empathic communication is only useful or appropriate for the work of “bridging divides”, where neither “side” is attempting to influence one another, but both are simply seeking to gain greater mutual understanding. While this is clearly a valid and valuable purpose for empathic communication, empathic communication is also central to the work of ethically influencing people — from the garden-variety influence of Deep Canvassing to the more intense work of deradicalization.

These two different purposes are distinct.  Wanting to create greater mutual understanding and “re-humanization” of one another, is not the same thing as seeking to ethically influence another person. At the same time, whenever we are indeed seeking to ethically influence someone, working toward some mutual understanding is usually a first step.

In addition, there is a third significant realm of empathic communication, which is supporting a group at arriving at shared ways forward – more on that, below. But first…

(a photo by Renee Fisher on Unsplash, foregrounded in an earlier Medium post I wrote on empathy [which we also posted in BI Newsletter 249… that one was shorter and much less academic. Back to this longer and denser weave…)

The explanatory power of brain science metaphors. 

As a practitioner and researcher in the human behavioral sciences, I am intrigued by theories and models that help us to understand how this kind of growth happens in one-on-one or small group contexts. One model that has become very popular in the realm of working with trauma, is Stephen Porges’ polyvagal theory. The theory emphasizes that the fight/flight/freeze circuit of human response is different to the “social engagement” circuit which allows for complex thought and creative engagement with difference.

This theory has been the subject of some criticism. In addition to the claim that “there’s nothing new here”, as the knowledge that our body’s threat-detection system inhibits social engagement and complex thought has long been part of the scientific mainstream, there has also been disagreement with regard to the underlying biological and evolutionary mechanisms that Porges posits.[12] Nonetheless, clinicians continue to find the overall model useful for helping clients gain a broad-brushtroke view of their own and others’ trauma responses, in a way that emphasizes that healing is possible.[13]

In any case, what can get too easily lost in the weeds, is the overall point to which all parties in the debate agree – when we as humans perceive threat, it lowers our social functioning and our ability to handle complex thought. This alone could be reason enough to reconsider our present cultural pattern of structuring our collaborative search for useful truths, through the underlying metaphor of “argument as battle”.[14]  

Also looking to neuroscience, leadership consultant David Rock has synthesized scientific findings to create his S.C.A.R.F. model, a useful mnemonic can help us remember the underlying needs for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness that underlie much human social behavior.[15] His model is another way to understand how metaphorical battles create the perception of social threats which in turn activate the fight-flight response. Not only is this a notoriously ineffective way to “get people to change their minds”, it is counter-productive for eliciting the brain-states that allow us to work creatively with differences.

More empirical evidence on how to generate learning mindsets. 

In addition to studies of deep canvassing and cases of de-radicalization, there is another set of accounts that also points to the real possibility and power of generating a learning mindset. This is the accumulated evidence with regard to minipublics.[16] Unlike deep canvassing, the purpose of deliberative minipublics is not to ethically persuade anyone about any particular stance. And unlike explicit deradicalization efforts, their intended purpose is not to deradicalize anyone. Instead, the purpose of a deliberative minipublic is to help a small yet highly diverse group find enough common ground so that they can come up with a shared set of public policy recommendations in a given policy area. If you are starting with an intentionally diverse group, for this to happen, there will need to be a certain amount our shifts in mindsets and perspectives; yet it is the participants themselves who are determining the convergences at which they will arrive.[17]

Deliberative minipublics are microcosms of the larger whole, whether that “larger whole” is a town, city, state, or country. The group is composed through random selection, similar in some ways to a jury. This microcosm of “regular people” is invited to participate in the task of arriving at shared policy recommendations. Unlike a jury, the minipublic is not deciding on criminal cases. Instead, they are offering a set of recommendations to governmental decision-makers.  While many different formats for minipublics exist, what is striking is to take a bird’s eye view of their outcomes. Despite all the differences in format, length, and facilitation style, in case after case, we find that highly diverse group of ordinary people has been able to work together effectively. Thousands of instances with similar outcomes have led deliberate democracy researchers to conclude that “pessimistic claims about the citizenry’s ability to make sound judgments” have been thoroughly refuted.^[18]  

One common element in minipublics is skilled facilitation. 

In any form of public engagement, the basic role of facilitators or moderators is to create and uphold a conducive environment of relative psychological safety, where each participant is heard and treated with respect.^[19] Within these supportive conditions, repeated case studies have found that participants in minipublics are able to work constructively with others who have different perspectives, to find or create some common ground, and to arrive at a shared set of recommendations. Regardless of the variances in their design, and the degree to which the recommendations of these minipublics are subsequently implemented, we see over and over that a context where each person is treated with dignity and respect elicits working levels of open-mindedness, collaboration, and learning in human beings.[20]

In one way, this is like proving that “mother’s milk is good for you.” Of course, treating people well, brings out the best in them! Yet there is more nuance here than might meet the eye. In his book The Righteous Mind, Haidt writes that

“We should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. But if you put individuals together in the right way, such that some individuals can use their reasoning powers to disconfirm the claims of others, and all individuals feel some common bond or shared fate that allows them to interact civilly, you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.”[21] (emphasis added)

This statement about the potential of groups to engage in good reasoning together, resonates deeply with my own professional experience as a group facilitator, and also with what I’ve learned from other group facilitators through my qualitative research[22]. More generally, we see the evidence of this in the experience of the thousands of minipublics to which Dryzek et al. refer.[23] 

Haidt continues by pointing out the critical need to have a diverse group in order to support good reasoning, especially when groups are fulfilling a societally significant function:

“This is why it’s so important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth (such as an intelligence agency or a community of scientists) or to produce good public policy (such as a legislature or advisory board).”[24]  

As mentioned above, this diversity is a key feature of minipublics, one ensured through stratified random selection.  Another equally important feature is the ability to generate the feeling of a “common bond or shared fate” –the conditions that Haidt describes as supporting participants’ ability to “interact civilly.”  In the case of minipublics, one essential aspect to creating this kind of atmosphere is the use of skilled facilitation.[25]  The connection with democracy here is that participants are learning, implicitly and experientially, about the value of listening to and interacting with diverse people—as they experience a process which allows them to create some authentic common ground.

More on tapping into the power of respectful interactions, in one-on-one contexts. 

Having facilitators is essential when we want to create a conducive space for collaboration, where each person can have a turn to speak, and will be treated with respect – the conditions which allow a very diverse small group to discover and create some common ground. Yet what about when we are engaging in one-on-one interactions with others who think differently than we do?

A closer look at the real-life accounts of deradicalization referred to earlier, shows the potential power of respectful interactions with others, even in one-on-one contexts.  These stories are admittedly unusual examples: Deeyah Khan, a Muslim filmmaker from England, journeys to the United States to interview white nationalists and to learn why they had sent her hate mail, only to unexpectedly find a few of her interviewees renouncing their former beliefs after their encounters with her.[26] Derek Black, a young white nationalist who decides to attend a liberal college, ends up friendless and isolated after the identity he has kept secret from his new acquaintances is discovered. Then a Jewish student begins to invite Derek over for Friday night seders, and eventually Derek ends up rejecting his previous beliefs; to the point where several members of his Christian white nationalist family no longer wish to speak to him.[27] Daryl Davis, an African-American blues musician, has conversations with Klan members that succeed in deradicalizing an impressive number of them; several have even given Daryl the Klan hoods which they are no longer using.[28] All three of these significant instances have occurred within the last 10 years, and there are many more. A growing number of organizations have been created to support people who want to leave extremist movements; care and compassion is a common thread in the process.[29]

We could choose to dismiss the above stories and many others like them, as anomalies that are irrelevant to “ordinary people” – or, we could regard them as illustrative instances of the real potential for humans to grow and develop past limiting beliefs, as well as illuminating examples of what it takes for this to happen. In the course of our daily lives, we may not be engaging with people who hold such a degree of extremism. Yet if we look at the repeated effectiveness of the Deep Canvassing model described earlier, we see that a respectful mutual listening approach can help even in less extreme circumstances.

At the same time, it can be harder to create a mutual listening space in a one-on-one conversation, than it is to engage as a participant in a facilitated small-group conversation. Whenever we are seek to generate a mutual listening space in a one-on-one context, we are both a participant in the conversation, while also, taking on the responsibility for creating conditions that allow both of us to be heard. In other words, we are being both a participant as well as a facilitator.

Thus, strategic one-on-one work requires effort and preparation, as emphasized by David Campt,[30] a black anti-racism expert who teaches white people how to effectively and ethically promote racial equality with friends and family members who believe that racism is no longer something that negatively impacts black people. Campt’s dialogical approach builds on the use active listening, empathy, and narrative and actively discourages any blaming and shaming.[31] In his more recent work, he applies this same model for helping progressive people have more effective conversations with conservative friends and family members.[32]

In a similar vein, Renée Lertzman[33] has been developing social psychology best practices for empathically encouraging effective responses to the climate emergency. Along with a whole host of other resources, she has produced a very short and simple video for helping people take the first steps toward engaging in mutual listening conversations[34]; yet even these first steps might be challenging, as “simple” does not necessarily mean “easy”. Yet as the already-mentioned research on Deep Canvassing shows, the effort, skill, and dedication that are needed to create the conditions for mutual listening and empathy, can be quite worthwhile, with regard to helping shift attitudes toward more inclusive stance.[35]

Parallels with nonviolent resistance. 

Effective nonviolent activism, another powerful approach to social change, also takes a great deal of preparation and effort. We can learn about this in historical accounts of the extensive training involved in the Civil Rights movement.[36] I want to point out a few significant parallels between nonviolent civil resistance, and the respectful, empathic conversations that support the growth of learning mindsets in small-group and/or one-on-one interactions. Both require a significant amount of intention, preparation, and effort; in addition, another shared feature is that both nonviolent resistance and nonviolent conversation embody the assumption that we all belong; all human beings are inherently worthy of being treated with dignity, no matter how strongly we may disagree with their beliefs.

At its core, refraining from violence means that we are engaging in inherently respectful behavior toward other humans. This is something we hold fast to in nonviolent resistance, even as we are also respecting our own values by engaging in civil disobedience to protect that which we hold dear.  Along similar lines, transformative empathic conversations invite us to consider refraining from a different form of violence. We are not just refraining from physical aggression, but we are also refraining from the epistemic violence of self-righteousness, judgmentalism, and verbal combat. Empirical evidence shows that an effective way to communicate the value of a more inclusive mindset to those who may not share these values, is by allowing others to experience these values in a lived interaction over time. Whether in caring small-group or one-on-one encounters, the heart of the work is to offer an environment that allows each person’s perspective to be heard. Simple, yet not easy…

For one thing, anger cannot be simply suppressed. Instead, we need to have effective ways for metabolizing and transforming it, so that we can channel its energy along constructive dimensions. Jaak Panksepp, neuroscience researcher and the originator of the field known as “affective neuroscience”, considers that the only brain-based system that can really take care of the RAGE system is the CARE system.[37] As author and neuroscience educator Sarah Peyton explains, “We have to know what we love and allow our rage to be turned into passionate advocacy by the power of our deepest, most beloved values.”[38] 

Where to from here?

 It seems to me that holding the door open for all of us to grow into more inclusive mindsets through experiences of empathic communication, is greatly needed in our world today. This form of “communicative nonviolent activism” has a significant role to play, alongside other forms of nonviolent civil resistance. Of course, working with empathic communication to generate greater mutual understanding can be worthwhile in its own right; seeing one another as humans goes a long way toward de-escalating potential violence. At the same time, treating others and ourselves with empathy and respect is a necessary first step if we wish to ethically influence others in the direction of greater inclusivity.

Some would point out with good reason, that we are “always already” influencing one another anyway; the only question being, the form that we want our influence to take. In a similar manner, creating a climate of mutual goodwill in groups goes a long way toward generating mutual understanding. Furthermore, it makes it possible for small, diverse groups to arrive more effectively at some shared common ground. At the same time, I do not want to sugar-coat our present challenges. While the arc of the moral universe may bend towards justice, we do not know how long that takes. Given the many crises our world is facing, we do not know whether we have enough time, resources, and collective will, to reduce the ever-increasing amounts of unnecessary suffering that are currently being created.

We do know that violence tends to beget more violence, whether physical or emotional; we also know that neither yelling nor arguing, much less shaming or blaming, are effective means for opening minds and hearts. Yet it may be another unknown that offers us a source of strength and persistence in face many challenges. We simply can’t know what the full potential is, for the transformative power of empathic communication to “scale deep and scale wide” — unless we make a long-term commitment to it.

May we take as our guiding light, the foundational value that Ludwig Feuerbach described as “the realization of the Unity of the Species”[39]. In more recent Rastafarian vernacular, we may know this as “One Love”.

[1] Astra Taylor, Democracy May Not Exist, But We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone (Metropolitan Books, 2019).

[2] For brief intro, see Jonathan Ellis, “Motivated Reasoning: A philosopher on confirmation bias”. Interview by Michel Martin, NPR, Jan 28, 2017. https://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/512199352/confirmation-bias. For a compilation of scientific research, see  Science Direct, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/motivated-reasoning

[3] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962).

[4] Karl Mannheim, with Julia Mannheim-Láng, Ideology and Utopia (Martino Fine Books, 2015 reprint of original American 1936 edition.) Original German title, Ideologie und Utopia (1929).  

[5] Patricia Hill Collins,“Perspectivity and the activist potential of the sociology classroom”, Humanity & Society, 27(3) (2003), 358-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059760302700317; also Patricia Hill Collins, Black feminist thought (Routledge Classics, 2020).

[6] Benoit Denizet-Lewis, “How Do You Change Voters’ Minds? Have a Conversation”, New York Times Magazine, April 7, 2016.

[7] Joshua L. Kalla and David E. Broockman, “Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes Through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 114, no. 2 (2020): 410-425, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000923.

[8] Eli Saslow, “The White Flight of Derek Black,” The Washington Post, October 15, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

[9] Conor Friedersdorf, “Perhaps the Most Effective Way to Fight Racism,” The Atlantic, December 12, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/deeyah-khan-white-right/577834/;

[10] Oliver Murphy, “Meet the Black Musician Unraveling Generations of Hate,” Yes Magazine, July 21, 2020, https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2020/07/21/addressing-white-supremacy

[11] Kalla & Broockman, “Reducing exclusionary attitudes”, 423-424.

[12] Alyssa Luck, “Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal”, https://alyssaluck.com/polyvagal-theory-a-critical-appraisal/

[13] Caroline Giroux et al., “Polyvagal Approaches: scientifically questionable but useful in practice”, Journal of Psychiatry Reform, 10:11, October 2023. https://journalofpsychiatryreform.com/2023/10/17/polyvagal-approaches-scientifically-questionable-but-useful-in-practice/

[14] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press, 1980).

[15] David Rock, D. (2008). ‘SCARF: A Brain-Based Model for Collaborating With and Influencing Others,’ Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 1-9.

[16] John S. Dryzek et al, “The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation”, Science, 363, 6432 (2019): 1144-1146.

[17] Dryzek et al., “The Crisis of Democracy”

[18] Dryzek, et al., “The Crisis of Democracy”

[19] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wav. (OECD Publishing, 2020) https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.

[20] For a deep dive into the power of context, see Alicia Juarrero, Context Changes Everything: How Constraints Create Coherence (MIT Press, 2023). Open Access https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5600/Context-Changes-EverythingHow-Constraints-Create

[21] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Vintage Books, 2012) p. 105.

[22] Rosalma Zubizarreta-Ada, “Facilitators’ Insights from the Vorarlberg Citizens’ Councils: A Qualitative Research Study on the Process of Collaborative Meaning-Making.” Order No. 30426025, Fielding Graduate University, 2023. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/facilitators-insights-vorarlberg-citizens/docview/2806786417/se-2.

[23] Dryzek et al., “The Crisis of Democracy”.

[24] Haidt, The Righteous Mind, p. 105.

[25] Dryzek et al., “The Crisis of Democracy”.

[26] Friedersdorf, “Perhaps the Most Effective Way to Fight Racism”.

[27] Saslow, “The White Flight of Derek Black”.

[28] Murphy, “Meet the Black Musician Unraveling Generations of Hate”.

[29] For example, see Beyond Barriers, https://beyondbarriersusa.org/; Parents4Peace, https://www.parents4peace.org/; and Life After Hate, https://www.lifeafterhate.org/.

[30] Sam Fulwood III, “David Campt has a plan to better arm white people in the battle against racism”, ThinkProgress, Oct 2, 2018,https://thinkprogress.org/david-campt-strategies-for-ending-racism-bd3173aa863a/

[31] David W. Campt, The White Ally Toolkit Workbook: Using Active Listening, Empathy, and Personal Storytelling to Promote Racial Equity(I AM Publications, 2018). 

[32] Victoria Taylor, “Dr. David Campt shares the secret to successful conversations, and it’s about to get strategic”, Linked In, November 29, 2020. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dr-david-campt-shares-secret-successful-conversations-victoria-taylor/

[33] Renée Lertzman, “Why We Need to Shift from Righting to Guiding”, Substack, October 11, 2024.

https://open.substack.com/pub/reneelertzman/p/why-we-need-to-shift-from-righting

[34] Action for the Climate Emergency, “The Secret to Talking About Climate Change”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPZw0zbHNE

[35] Kalla & Broockman, “Reducing exclusionary attitudes”.

[36] James Lawson, Jr., Revolutionary Nonviolence: Organizing for Freedom (University of California Press, 2022).

[37] Jaak Panksepp and Lucy Biven, The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions, Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology (W. W. Norton & Company, 2012).

[38] Sarah Peyton, personal communication

[39] Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, trans. by Marian Evans / George Eliot fromDas Wesen des Christentums (Edward Chapman and William Hall, 1854, Print), p, 266. Digital version accessed from the George Eliot Archive, https://georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/250