Managing tensions in public discourse: Speak up or step back?

The idea of moderation in public discourse appeals to me: when we moderate ourselves, turn down the volume or the intensity of how we communicate, we can hear and be better heard by others.

We can all be less defensive, and more thoughtful. When the algorithms and ratings numbers that determine so much of our public discourse drive extremism, outrage, and lies, moderation can be profoundly and positively counter-cultural.

However, the concept of moderation or balance can also degrade our discourse, leading, for example, to public broadcasters that platform lies or nonsense in the name of ‘both sides’ coverage, and advocates who get labelled "extreme", naive or impractical when they call for evidence-based change.

We live in times of extreme crisis – sometimes the very necessary, practical steps we must take to preserve our own futures are also ‘extreme’ or radical – they match the scale of the problem. As advocates we have all felt the pressure to make our advocacy palatable and be less "radical". That’s not our job.

So how should advocates navigate a time when we must call for bold action, and face hard truths, in a way that invites genuine dialogue and doesn’t drive us further apart into our different tribes? Can you speak to extreme situations from the centre? Here are some thoughts on how we could try:

We have a great deal in common, if we look for it. For example, research by our colleagues at Australia Remade into the idea of the public good (www.australiaremade.org/public-good) found that Australians from all walks of life share strong agreement on the importance of housing, healthcare, education, jobs, access to nature, and the internet.

They summarised their findings as a close to universal aspiration to be connected to communities, be cared for, and make a meaningful contribution. If we start from shared values, we can talk about any issue in a way that builds connection instead of division.

Words can carry a lot of extra baggage. Their meanings can change over time, and they can mean different things to different groups. The Bridging Dictionary (bridgingdictionary.org/info/) from the MIT Centre for Constructive Communication lists words of this type in the US, suggesting alternatives that don’t evoke ideological loyalties.

If you’re like me, it takes conscious attention to use bridging language – the other sort is so much more intuitive! Taking care in the words we choose however, can help us to say things that are radical, in the sense of matching the extremity of our times, in a moderate tone that anyone can hear.

Even in the age of social media, when anyone with an internet connection can be a journalist, not all of us get to have a say.

Who speaks also matters a lot. If we’re to be truly Radical Moderates, we need to be attentive to who gets to participate in social and political advocacy. Whose voices are missing, and how might we hand over the mic?

When our public discourse is dominated by the loudest voices, they are usually the most extreme and the least interested in finding common ground.

Anytime I see a genuine deliberative process (researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/deliberative-democracy-and-the-climate-crisis) to tackle a hard problem, I am astonished and delighted by how good a representative group of regular people is at solving a hard problem. In the right setting, most people are sensible, smart, bold, and focused on what matters.

Community organising (www.sydneyalliance.org.au/) done well is another way to see moderate radicalism in action, based again on the starting point of the things we hold in common. Investing in supporting communities to engage in genuine deliberation or building active communities powerfully shifts public discourse to both moderation and courage – that’s what connecting people does.

Solutions produced in these settings can cut through the artificial limitations of politics and really move discourse on hard problems forward.

We can be radical in speaking truth to power, and moderate in the way we do it.

When we’re contributing to public discourse in ways that are values based, thoughtfully framed, inclusive, and based in active communities, we can build powerful coalitions of shared interests and values. Honestly, it’s hard to see how we win unless we do.

Saffron Zomer is the founder and executive director of the Australian Democracy Network. With experience in government relations and campaigning in both the US and Australia, she believes collaboration drives social change.