How to lead a conversation between people who disagree | Eve Pearlman

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Joanna Pietrulewicz

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Bruce Sung

（掌聲）

So in the run-up to the 2016 election,

在 2016 年選舉前夕，

I was, like most of us, watching the rise in discord and vitriol

我和大部分人一樣，看著 公共空間中的爭執、辛辣批評，

and nastiness in our public spaces.

和惡劣手段不斷加劇。

It was this crazy uptick in polarization.

兩極化又變得更誇張了。

It was both disheartening and distressing.

這現象讓人既沮喪又煩惱。

And so I started thinking, with a fellow journalist, Jeremy Hay,

於是，我和我的記者伙伴 傑若米海伊開始想，

about how we might practice our craft differently.

我們可以如何用不同的方式 來做我們的工作。

How we might go to the heart of divides,

我們如何能夠進入分裂的 核心地帶，衝突發生的地方，

to places of conflict,

like journalists always have,

就像記者平常所做的，

but then, once there, do something really different.

但當我們到了那裡， 要用完全不同的做法。

We knew we wanted to take the core tools of our craft --

我們知道，我們想要使用 這門行業的核心工具——

careful vetting of information, diligent research, curiosity,

仔細查證的資訊、 勤奮的研究、好奇心、

a commitment to serving the public good --

為了大我而努力的承諾——

to serving our democracy --

來為我們的民主盡一份心力—— 做些以前沒做過的。

and do something new.

And so we mapped out this process,

所以我們安排好了這個流程，

what we call dialogue journalism,

我們叫它「對話新聞工作」，

for going to the heart of social and political divides,

要做的就是前往社會 和政治分裂的核心地帶，

and then, once there, building journalism-supported conversations

接著，到那裡之後， 去建立由新聞來支持的對談，

between people on opposite sides of polarizing issues.

針對兩極化的議題， 讓對立的兩方人馬能對談。

But how actually to do this in a world that's so divided,

但在一個如此分裂的世界， 要怎麼做到這件事？

so deeply divided --

這分裂很深——

when we live in a world

我們所處的世界，

in which cousins and aunts and uncles can't talk to one another,

表親姑姑阿姨舅舅叔叔 都無法彼此交談，

when we often live in separate and distinct news ecosystems,

因為我們通常都生活在分裂 且立場鮮明的新聞生態系統中，

and when we reflexively and habitually malign and dismiss

我們會反射性地、 習慣性地去中傷和輕視

those with whom we disagree?

我們不認同的人。

But we wanted to try.

但我們想要一試。

And so right after the 2016 election,

所以，2016 年選舉一結束，

in that time between the election and the inauguration,

在選舉和就職之間的這段期間，

we partnered with the Alabama Media Group to do something really different.

我們和阿拉巴馬媒體集團合作， 做了件非常不同的事。

We brought 25 Trump supporters from Alabama together

我們從阿拉巴馬找了 二十五位川普支持者，

in conversation with 25 Clinton supporters from California.

和來自加州的二十五位 希拉蕊支持者對談。

And we brought them together in a closed, moderated Facebook group

我們把他們聚集在一起的方式， 是用非公開、受管理的臉書群組，

that we kept open for a month.

這個群組開設一個月。

What we wanted to do

我們想要做的，

was to give them a place to engage with genuine curiosity and openness.

是給他們一個地方讓他們能 帶著誠摯的好奇心和坦誠投入。

And we wanted to support them in building relationships,

我們想要支持他們建立關係，

not just with each other but with us as journalists.

不只是彼此間， 也和我們記者建立關係。

And then we wanted to supply facts and information --

接著，我們想要提供 事實和資訊——

facts and information that they could actually receive and process

他們真正能接收到並處理的資訊，

and use to undergird their conversations.

且用來作為他們對談的基礎。

And so as a prelude to this conversation,

所以這次對談的序幕開始了，

the first step in what we call dialogue journalism,

我們所謂的對話新聞工作 踏出了第一步，

we asked what they thought the other side thought of them.

我們先問他們認為 對方怎麼看待他們。

So when we asked the Trump supporters from Alabama

我們問來自阿拉巴馬的 川普支持者，

what they thought the Clinton supporters in California thought of them,

他們認為加州的希拉蕊 支持者會怎麼看待他們，

this is some of what they said.

這些是其中一些答案。

"They think we are religious Bible thumpers."

「他們認為我們是 狂熱激進的基督教徒。」

"That we're backwards and hickish, and stupid."

「我們是退步、愚笨的鄉巴佬。」

"They think that we all have Confederate flags in our yards,

「我們的院子裡都有 南部聯盟的旗幟，

我們有種族、性別歧視， 且沒受教育。」

that we're racist and sexist and uneducated."

"They think we're barefoot and pregnant, with dirt driveways."

「他們認為我們打赤腳、 懷孕，且車道沒鋪水泥。」

"And they think we're all prissy butts

「說我們正經八百到惹人笑話，

and that we walk around in hoop skirts with cotton fields in the background."

老穿著大裙撐 在棉花田前走來走去。」

And then we asked that same question of the Californians:

接著，我們拿同樣的 問題去問加州人：

"What do you think the Alabamians think about you?"

「你認為阿拉巴馬人 會怎麼看待你們？」

And they said this: "That we're crazy, liberal Californians."

他們說：「他們說我們是 發瘋的自由主義加州人。」

"That we're not patriotic."

「認為我們不愛國。」

"We're snobby and we're elitist."

「我們是勢利的菁英主義者。」

"We're godless and we're permissive with our children."

「我們不信神， 並縱容我們的孩子。」

"And that we're focused on our careers, not our family."

「我們重視的是我們的 職涯而不是家庭。」

"That we're elitist, pie-in-the-sky intellectuals,

「我們是菁英主義者、 畫大餅的知識分子、

rich people, Whole Foods-eating,

有錢人、吃天然健康食品的人，

very out of touch."

且脫離現實。」

So by asking questions like this at the start of every conversation

所以，每次對談都用 類似這樣的問題來當開端，

and by identifying and sharing stereotypes,

藉由找出刻板印象， 分享刻板印象，

we find that people -- people on all sides --

我們發現大家—— 不論哪一邊的人——

begin to see the simplistic and often mean-spirited caricatures they carry.

都會開始了解他們其實帶著 過分簡化且通常很狹隘的偏頗印象。

And in that --

這麼做——這麼做之後，

after that, we can move into a process of genuine conversation.

我們就可以進入真實對談的流程。

So in the two years since that launch -- California/Alabama Project --

加州／阿拉巴馬計畫 開始之後的這兩年間，

we've gone on to host dialogues and partnerships

我們已經和全國各地的媒體組織

with media organizations across the country.

合作來主持對話。

And they've been about some of our most contentious issues:

對話的主題通常是 最會引起爭論的議題：

guns, immigration, race, education.

槍枝、移民、種族、教育。

And what we found,

我們有個很驚人的發現：

remarkably,

is that real dialogue is in fact possible.

真實的對話其實是有可能的。

And that when given a chance and structure around doing so,

當我們給予大家機會 和有架構的方式來做真實的對話，

many, not all, but many of our fellow citizens

許多人，不是所有人， 但有許多我們的同胞，

are eager to engage with the other.

都很渴望和另一方接觸。

Too often journalists have sharpened divides

記者們太常讓分裂加劇了，

in the name of drama or readership or in service to our own views.

只是為了求戲劇效果和吸引讀者， 或是呈現我們自己的觀點。

And too often we've gone to each side quoting a partisan voice on one side

我們也太常到各邊去， 引述這一方的極端聲音，

and a partisan voice on the other

和另一方的極端聲音，

with a telling anecdotal lead and a pithy final quote,

加上生動的道聽途說線索 和簡潔的最終引述，

all of which readers are keen to mine for bias.

讀者們就會很熱切地去挖出偏見。

But our dialogue-based process has a slower pace and a different center.

但我們這個以對話為基礎的流程， 步調比較慢，核心也不相同。

And our work is guided by the principle

我們這項工作的指導原則是

that dialogue across difference is essential to a functioning democracy,

要讓民主能夠運作， 跨越歧見的對話是很重要的，

and that journalism and journalists have a multifaceted role to play

且新聞工作和記者 要扮演多面向的角色

in supporting that.

來提供支援。

So how do we work?

所以，我們要怎麼做？

At every stage, we're as transparent as possible

在每一個階段， 我們都要盡量公開透明，

about our methods and our motives.

讓大家知道我們的方法和動機。

At every stage, we take time to answer people's questions --

在每一個階段，我們要 花時間回答大家的問題——

explain why we're doing what we're doing.

解釋我們在做什麼、 為何要這麼做。

We tell people that it's not a trap:

我們告訴大家，這不是陷阱：

no one's there to tell you you're stupid,

沒有人會告訴你說你很愚笨，

no one's there to tell you your experience doesn't matter.

沒有人會告訴你說 你的經歷不重要。

And we always ask for a really different sort of behavior,

且我們總是會希望大家 能做出很不同的行為，

a repatterning away from the reflexive name-calling,

把反射性的中傷謾罵 重塑成不同的行為，

so entrenched in our discourse

深根在我們的談話中，

that most of us, on all sides, don't even notice it anymore.

讓各方大部分的人 都不會再注意到它。

So people often come into our conversations a bit angrily.

所以，通常大家來到 我們的對談時是有點生氣的。

They say things like, "How can you believe X?"

他們會說：「你怎麼能相信 X？」

and "How can you read Y?"

和「你怎麼能去閱讀 Y？」

and "Can you believe that this happened?"

和「你能相信發生這種事嗎？」

But generally, in this miracle that delights us every time,

但一般來說，每次都會 發生讓我們很開心的奇蹟，

people begin to introduce themselves.

大家會開始介紹他們自己。

And they begin to explain who they are and where they come from,

他們會開始解釋他們 是什麼人、來自何方，

and they begin to ask questions of one another.

他們會開始問彼此問題。

And slowly, over time, people circle back again and again to difficult topics,

慢慢隨著時間過去，大家會 一再繞回到難談的主題上，

each time with a little more empathy, a little more nuance,

每次都多一點同理心， 多一點細微的差別，

a little more curiosity.

多一點好奇心。

And our journalists and moderators work really hard to support this

我們的記者和管理者 非常努力在支援，

因為這不是辯論，不是戰爭，

because it's not a debate, it's not a battle,

it's not a Sunday morning talk show.

不是星期日晨間的脫口秀。

It's not the flinging of talking points.

不是要振振有詞地論述。

It's not the stacking of memes and gifs

不是要拿出標題能夠證明論點的

or articles with headlines that prove a point.

大量影片、圖片或文章。

And it's not about scoring political victories with question traps.

重點也不是要用問題陷阱 來取得政治上的勝利。

So what we've learned is that our state of discord is bad for everyone.

所以，我們學到的是，

處於不和諧的狀態對大家都沒好處。

It is a deeply unhappy state of being.

這種生活狀態有著很深的不快。

And people tell us this again and again.

人們不斷這麼告訴我們。

They say they appreciate the chance to engage respectfully,

他們說，他們很感謝有機會 能用這種方式互動，有尊重、

with curiosity and with openness,

有好奇心、有開放性，

and that they're glad and relieved for a chance to put down their arms.

且有機會能放下武裝， 讓他們很高興也鬆了一口氣。

And so we do our work in direct challenge

所以，我們所做的，是直接挑戰

to the political climate in our country right now,

美國現在的政治氣候，

and we do it knowing that it is difficult, challenging work

且我們在做之前就知道， 要讓背景對立的人對談，

to hold and support people in opposing backgrounds in conversation.

並支持他們對談，會是 很困難、很有挑戰的事。

And we do it knowing democracy depends on our ability

我們在做之前就知道，民主的基礎

to address our shared problems together.

是我們一起處理共同問題的能力。

And we do this work by putting community at the heart of our journalistic process,

我們在做的過程中，一直把共同體 放在這個新聞流程的中心，

by putting our egos to the side to listen first, to listen deeply,

把自我放在旁邊， 先去傾聽，深刻地傾聽，

to listen around and through our own biases,

傾聽時要繞過、通過我們的偏見，

our own habits of thought,

我們自己的思考習慣，

and to support others in doing the same.

並支持其他人也能同樣這麼做。

And we do this work

我們在做之前就知道， 新聞體制正在掙扎中，

knowing that journalism as an institution is struggling,

and that it has always had a role to play and will continue to have a role to play

在支持想法和觀點的交流上，

新聞一直都扮演著一個角色， 也會持續扮演下去。

in supporting the exchange of ideas and views.

For many of the participants in our groups,

對我們團體中的成員而言，

there are lasting reverberations.

這些迴響會一直持續。

Many people have become Facebook friends and in-real-life friends too,

許多人成了朋友，包括 在臉書上及在真實世界上，

across political lines.

跨越了政治的界線。

After we closed that first Trump/Clinton project,

在我們結束了第一個 川普／希拉蕊計畫之後，

about two-thirds of the women went on to form their own Facebook group

大約三分之二的女性繼續成立了 她們自己的臉書群組，

and they chose a moderator from each state

她們從每一州選出一名管理者，

and they continue to talk about difficult and challenging issues.

繼續談論很難談 且很有挑戰性的議題。

People tell us again and again that they're grateful for the opportunity

人們不斷告訴我們， 他們很感謝有這樣的機會，

to be a part of this work,

能參與這個計畫，

grateful to know that people on the other side aren't crazy,

很感謝能夠了解到 另一邊的人並沒有發瘋，

grateful that they've had a chance to connect with people

很感謝能夠有機會去連結那些

他們本來根本不會去對話的人。

they wouldn't have otherwise talked to.

A lot of what we've seen and learned,

儘管我們自稱是太空船媒體，

despite the fact that we call ourselves Spaceship Media,

我們了解到、學習到的 許多事其實一點也不艱深。

is not at all rocket science.

If you call people names, if you label them, if you insult them,

如果你去謾罵別人、 給別人貼標籤、侮辱別人，

they are not inclined to listen to you.

他們通常就不會傾聽你。

Snark doesn't help, shame doesn't help,

冷嘲熱諷沒有幫助， 羞辱沒有幫助，

condescension doesn't help.

優越感沒有幫助。

Genuine communication takes practice and effort

真誠的溝通需要練習和努力，

and restraint and self-awareness.

也需要自制力和自我意識。

There isn't an algorithm to solve where we are.

我們的處境不能 用一個演算法來解決。

Because real human connection is in fact real human connection.

因為真實的人類連結 事實上就是真實的人類連結。

So lead with curiosity,

所以，讓好奇心來引導，

emphasize discussion not debate,

著重討論而不是辯論，

get out of your silo,

離開你自己的井底，

because real connection across difference ...

因為跨越歧見的真實連結……

this is a salve that our democracy sorely needs.

這是我們的民主非常需要的良藥。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）