Dialogue over Dissmisal

At the Civility Initiative at the college, we teach healthy conflict and dialogue across difference. For two years, our workshops and community events have helped people recognize and regulate the “fight or flight” responses that so often take over during disagreements. We help participants pause, breathe and feel the possibility for more constructive connections. What we’ve learned – again and again – is that conflict isn’t the problem. The problem is how we approach it.

One topic that has come up time and again on When We Disagree, our podcast about important disagreements in all of our lives, is the difference between proactive and reactive habits of healthy debate and dialogue. Proactive habits shape how we enter disagreements; reactive habits guide how we respond once things get tense. Together, they offer a road map for finding common ground and keeping conversations productive rather than polarizing.

Proactive Dialogue: Setting the Stage for Understanding

Before disagreement even begins, it helps to clarify what counts as good evidence. People rely on different forms of proof – personal experience, data, expert opinion or moral reasoning – and assuming everyone shares the same standard is a recipe for frustration. By naming how we each decide what’s credible, we build trust and reduce the chances of talking past one another.

Curiosity is another essential proactive habit. When someone presents an unfamiliar or unconvincing claim, we can ask, “How did you come to see it that way?” rather than rushing to correct them. This question shifts the tone from confrontation to exploration. Dialogue thrives when our first impulse is to understand, not to win.

Finally, it helps to remember that evidence is emotional. People’s beliefs about what’s true are often bound up with identity, belonging and experience. Recognizing this in advance allows us to approach conversation partners with empathy rather than suspicion.

Reactive Dialogue: Navigating Conflict in the Moment

Even with the best preparation, disagreements can still spark defensiveness or hurt. When that happens, healthy reactivity means slowing down rather than striking back. If you feel dismissed, ask, “What makes that hard to believe?” instead of doubling down. Slowing the pace helps both parties reengage their reasoning instead of their reflexes.

When others rely on stories or sources you find unconvincing, try to translate rather than dismiss: “So that example is meaningful to you because … ?” Doing so validates their experience without conceding the argument. If tension rises, name it gently: “We seem stuck on what counts as proof.” By talking about the disagreement, not through it, we transform friction into reflection. Healthy argument balances conviction and humility. It’s possible to stand firm in what you believe while still showing openness to new perspectives. Dialogue doesn’t always end in agreement – but it can end in mutual curiosity, a recognition that each side’s reasoning makes sense within their world.

A Courageous Path Forward

If we can get a little better – individually and collectively – at listening, arguing and thinking carefully about what counts as proof, then we can improve our world one conversation, one relationship at a time. The Civility Initiative’s mission is not to erase disagreement, but to humanize it. Each time we choose dialogue over dismissal or debate over disdain, we create space for understanding. And in those moments, however small, the world becomes just a bit more civil, more connected and more capable of change.

Professor of communication Michael J. Lee is the director of CofC’s Civility Initiative, which promotes healthy disagreement and dialogue through workshops, trainings, speakers, debates and podcasts.