What are the conditions that enable conversations that break us out of our echo chambers?

Expectations  

The Make it Better (MiB) team came in with some high expectations to the October MiB Table, given the emotional impact of the September Table. While there was no expectation of a ‘repeat’, in the lead up we wrestled with a question that would cut through any desire to hold on to our ‘capes’ and facilitate further authentic and real conversations. The challenging question we decided on was What are the conditions that enable conversations that break us out of our echo chambers? One of the key learnings from the September Table was that stories led to ‘lessons’ being taken aboard more so than theoretical statements, so Col added a ‘rider’ that answers to the question needed to take the form of a story derived from experience.  

Experience 

Col led us in the Acknowledgment of Country by reflecting on conversations with First Nations people, who when asked how they were feeling after the referendum loss, also reflected on how the ‘land was feeling.’ For some this might seem ‘woke’ but Col reflected on how far we had come since Acknowledgment of Country’s first became common. He hoped that in future years much of Indigenous culture would be accepted by the bulk of mainstream Australian society.  

We began the Table reflecting on the wrong conditions for the difficult conversations we were aiming to have. Timing was crucial, as was recognising whether a topic was ‘loaded’ – such as discussions on the situation in Israel and Gaza. In tackling these big issues, however, which perhaps need most to have people emerge from their echo chambers, stories were genuinely shared about hospitality and love being important characteristics, as well as “a willingness to be present and respond.” We also needed to embrace the possibility “that people have not heard of another viewpoint. Mutual respect and friendship are extremely important.” 

Another story ended with the honest reflection about “being curious with the other person.” We were also challenged to think about how we view arguments; if we ‘lose’ an argument that is often considered a negative thing. One participant boldly and honestly reflected that “I like losing arguments because I learn something.”  

People, of course, cycled back to the Voice Referendum as an example of humans preferring to stay in their echo chambers. This, of course, was viewed as a factor in it’s the Referendum’s failure. “You have to be engaged to vote ‘yes’,” one participant reflected. To change minds, there is also a need to listen to opposing views. A helpful way to do this, one participant told through a revealing story, was to remember that those who are diametrically opposed to you can often want the same, basic needs – such as the safety to be themselves among their own people. They may even view what we call ‘progressive’ viewpoints and initiatives as threats to their safety and to the safety of the values they hold dear. In any conversation, we need to hold this in mind as it reminds us of the inherent humanity of all people.  

There was also the recognition that this was harder to do with the increasing polarisation that was coming through our media platforms, which often dehumanises the way we view others with a different viewpoint. The challenge before us was to “deal with people from another ‘tribe’ without resorting to cancel culture.” A story was told about how we were able to deal with other tribes in years past, as we had “rules that were based on mutual respect, that were codified and also reciprocal.” 

Outcomes 

One of the strongest themes that emerged from the stories and ideas that were shared was the notion that “the importance of holding relationship” was more important “than winning an argument.” The concept of valuing a person as someone with similar needs to us, rather than a two-dimensional collection of slogans, was seen as a way of working through opposing views as we embrace a shared sense of humanity.