Locker Room Talk
Originally Published in the May 2017 Kansas Bar Journal
A few weeks ago after a workout, two friends asked me about the state of the statehouse and what we might expect during the remainder of the legislative session. The conversation turned into a discussion on politics and governance with a touch of political philosophy thrown in for good measure. As I returned to the office, it struck me how uncommon the subject matter is for casual conversation.
Most people adopt the adage that “polite company does not discuss politics or religion.” Though Emily Post, the longtime authority on etiquette, did not adopt such a strict standard, she did give some thoughtful advice on approaching conversation in her 1922 book, Etiquette.[1] Post begins with the more elementary adage that good conversationalists think before they speak. Here, she veers closer to the no-politics-or-religion rule: “The tactful person keeps his prejudices to himself and…[i]f he finds another’s opinion utterly opposed to his own, he switches to another subject for a pleasanter channel of conversation.”[2]
Post continued in her chapter on conversation by reminding that “[p]reaching is all very well in a text-book, schoolroom or pulpit, but it has no place in society.”[3] Putting these etiquette rules together serves as a solid argument to indeed avoid discussion of politics and religion when out in society. But I fear taking this stance leaves us ill-equipped to discuss matters of worth.
The legal profession has a well-earned reputation for valuing reason. Many have focused on the intimacy between the law and reason—from Aristotle,[4] to Milton,[5] to Sir Edward Coke,[6] to Kansan William Allen White[7]—the law represents our attempt to capture the rules that govern our collective conduct. Our legal training instills logic and a capacity to work through complex matters point by point. This training serves us well in the law, but it also serves us well in other areas.
Training in the law does not necessarily translate to talents in politics or religion. But the training sharpens our tools to study and analyze. It accords a capacity to ask thoughtful questions and listen well to the response. This is the best way to address areas of passion and prejudice—the areas that matter most.
The modern political climate suggests a widening divide where opposing sides prompt feelings of fear, anger, and frustration.[8] Mere arguments are unlikely to simply win over opponents or eliminate the distrust toward people of opposing views. Such arguments may even have the opposite effect.[9] But this is where leadership comes into play.
Michael Hyatt, former Chairman and CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, recently wrote about the tendency to confuse leadership and control.[10] Hyatt emphasized that expanding influence takes more than just being in charge.[11] Words and conduct must be in place before we can wield influence.[12]
This means looking thoughtfully at who is in our circle of influence and seeing where we might engage and use the tools of our trade to lead discussions that matter. The law strengthens our ability to see the value in opposing arguments—ideally viewing those arguments without inflamed passion—which better enables us to extend this reason-based approach to those around us. This does not mean challenging via Facebook post the opinions of an acquaintance from high school that you haven’t spoken to since graduation. But it might mean offering questions or comments to a friend or colleague who might be interested in following your lead.
If there is to be meaningful discussion about subjects of heft, it will require mindfulness and empathy to communicate effectively. Whether the setting is a happy hour, a dinner party, or even social media, influence will more successfully transpire through the give and take of thoughtful discussion. You cannot will or argue someone into submission, but combining lawyering with a dose of etiquette may help close the societal divide.
As I drafted this column, I thought about the locker-room conversation that prompted my writing and what it would take for my daughters to express their own ideas with not only confidence and accuracy but also grace and humility. It led me back to a reprinted book that my mom gave my girls entitled How to Behave and Why.[13] The author, Munro Leaf, may be just as anachronistic as Emily Post, but her advice on wisdom is still quite timely. She offered that we make good friends “[b]y never acting as though we were the only people in the world who counted, and never acting fresh and showing off to make people believe that we think we are better than they are.”[14] Leaf added: “’I can’t always be right no matter who I am’ is a good thing for all of us to remember.”[15]
A children’s book, an etiquette column, and a law degree may be an odd template for substantive civility. Yet this may reflect Michael Hyatt’s point that it takes the smaller areas of influence to make a difference. It may be easiest to keep the chatter in the locker room restricted to sports and the weather, as well it often should be. But when the right occasion arises—with your purposeful forethought, reason and influence—you are positioned perfectly to engage in meaningful conversation that would receive even Emily Post’s seal of approval.
-------------------------------------------
[1] Post, Emily. Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics and at Home. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1922. Available at: www.bartleby.com/95/7.html.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Aristotle. Politics. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomic and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html (noting that law is reason free from passion or unaffected by desire).
[5] Milton, John. Paradise Lost, Book 9. Menston: Scolar Press, 1968 (original publication: 1667). Available at: www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_9/text.shtml (critiquing that we make reason our law).
[6] Coke, Edward. The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. 2 vols. London: R. Pheney & S. Brooks, 1823. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/cu31924021661693/cu31924021661693_djvu.txt (observing that reason is the life of the law).
[7] White, William A. Emporia Gazette, September 17, 1924 - Page 2 (editorializing that the Constitution institutes a “rule of reason and law rather than the rule of force”).
[8] Doherty, Carroll, Jocelyn Kiley, & Bridget Jameson. Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center, 2016.Available at: www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/06-22-16-Partisanship-and-animosity-release.pdf.
[9] Nyhan B., Reifler J..When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. (2010) Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. Available at: www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf.
[10] Hyatt, Michael, Are You Confusing Leadership and Control? 4 Ways You Can Become a Person of Influence (2017). Available at: www.michaelhyatt.com/leadership-control-vs-influence.html.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Leaf, Munro. How to Behave and Why. New York: Universe Publishing. 1946.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
