Mandisa Thomas on Conversation Versus Debate and Their Uses
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/07/09
Mandisa Thomas is the Founder of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. One of, if not the, largest organization for African-American or black nonbelievers or atheists in America. The organization is intended to give secular fellowship, provide nurturance and support for nonbelievers, encourage a sense of pride in irreligion, and promote charity in the non-religious community.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I recall a talk by you some time ago, which included a phrase along the lines of, “Not everyone’s going to make it,” or “You can’t save everybody.” It was something to that effect. I believe it encapsulates well the need to adopt different approaches for different individuals.
For a long time, and perhaps, the main hallmark of the New Atheism movement when it was on the rise, was a semi-confrontational, if not outright confrontational, debate style. While it has its place, there are alternative ways to reach people and engage in discussions on important issues, particularly in the United States where such matters are highly politicized.
What is your perspective on the significance of debate in contexts where it may not be necessary? Additionally, what is your view on the importance of conversation and discussion?
Mandisa Thomas: I believe that conversation, particularly one that is objective and where individuals are listening to understand, has the potential to resolve many issues, even if it does not solve everything. Much of our disagreement stems from a lack of understanding and from being so indoctrinated with a particular point of view that one is fearful of what the other side might represent. Sometimes, the approach from another side, especially one that is humanistic in nature and seeks to educate, should be more understanding and treat people with respect. In our spaces, people often strive to have the loudest and most profound voice, which can create tension and alienate others, which is counterproductive. While some individuals may not be initially receptive when presented with an opposing viewpoint, if we engage in good conversations where we genuinely strive to understand each other without being condescending or belittling those who are unaware, it can make a significant difference.
Many people are hesitant to speak up because they fear being wrong, teased, or ridiculed. Therefore, it is crucial to foster an environment where people feel safe to express themselves and ask questions. When it comes to conversational styles, as long as individuals are listening and attempting to understand, this approach is more effective than merely debating or trying to impose one’s point of view. Finding common ground, even with opposing viewpoints, can be beneficial. Ultimately, it is about helping each other understand better so that we can work together. Having candid discussions where people are not afraid to be vulnerable, and where vulnerability is met with acceptance, can lead to meaningful progress.
Jacobsen: Do you believe that an openness to being wrong or an acceptance of being wrong is an important component of such conversations?
Thomas: Absolutely. Yes, I do. If more people are open to saying, “I stand corrected,” or “I was wrong,” or “I was mistaken”, then we can make serious progress. There have been occasions where I have had to acknowledge, “I wasn’t aware of that.” Some individuals prefer to move on from an issue, or even defend their point of view, even if they were proven wrong. However, acknowledging one’s mistakes, such as saying, “I was either wrong about that, misled, or misunderstood, I was a bit confused,” goes a long way. It recognizes our humanity and ensures that people’s feelings are not discounted even in conversations.
As we strive to reach consensus, even if we do not agree, we must not deny the humanity of others, regardless of who they are. An exception to this would be those who seek to deprive others of THEIR humanity. Unfortunately, in our society, admitting you are wrong is often seen as the worst possible outcome. We need to revise this mindset and encourage people to admit their mistakes. And if they do, how do we support them? Trying to destroy people when they are wrong about something that can be fixed does not help anyone. It also leads to people being unwilling to admit they are wrong in the first place, which causes further harm. This cycle needs to be addressed individually and collectively.
Jacobsen: How do you approach individuals who require multiple conversations or ongoing dialogue, such as between friends or colleagues?
Thomas: It is important to try and approach such situations similarly to workplace management, where individuals should be given a warning. Inform them of the issue and offer support in addressing it. If the behaviors persist and there is no effort to correct and improve, then progressive redirection and even separation may be necessary. It is crucial to establish clear limits and boundaries.
I am currently attending the Secular Student Alliance conference, and during a conversation with a local secular leader, he mentioned the challenge of philosophical arguments at events. These arguments can create a tense environment and turn people away. I suggested that managing this is essential. If the same individuals are repeatedly engaging in these discussions and disrupting the event, then intervention is required.
We must let people know that it is acceptable to set boundaries. If someone or a group of people is not open to listening and understanding, even after they claim to understand, it is within our rights to shut them down. Establishing clear limits and boundaries is essential because it compels individuals to make changes. If they continue to behave inappropriately with others, they will eventually face consequences, and (hopefully) will be forced to change. While we prefer not to take drastic measures, sometimes they are necessary, and we must accept that.
Jacobsen: Based on your experience in community organizing, are there specific areas where conversations tend to be most challenging or sensitive, requiring significant social finesse or the involvement of someone trusted with social finesse?
Thomas: Yes, this can involve someone within the community or an individual interested in the community. This is a multifaceted issue. Personal matters, such as romantic relationships that end poorly, can be particularly challenging. Depending on the nature of the fallout, individuals might still be able to engage civilly in the same space. If the situation was contentious, it is important to have someone else assess or help manage it. Leaders should not have to handle such things alone.
I must admit that I don’t always follow this advice. Given the small size of many organizations, this can be difficult to avoid. However, years of leadership and organizing experience have shown that most issues can be approached with sensitivity and gentleness. There are other issues, such as those involving LGBTQ or trans individuals, where someone who lacks understanding may not be the best person to address or resolve them. While we hope everyone is open minded, it is best to involve someone more seasoned or expert in conflict resolution. This allows us to learn from them and be better prepared in the future. When people try to dominate conversations, it requires management. Many leaders can assertively handle such situations, but if they cannot, they should find someone who can. This is a necessary part of our work.
Jacobsen: The 2000s and 2010s were dominated by firebrand atheism, or new atheism, and similar movements. What do you consider the major successes of those movements in terms of their cultural impact? Additionally, with the benefit of hindsight, what were the mistakes of that time?
Thomas: One of the major successes of firebrand atheism is that it encouraged more atheists to come out openly. It empowered them to assert their atheism without fear. It also brought visibility to a movement that was considered obscure, and at times, still is. Firebrand atheism raised awareness about the existence of atheists and the religious pushback we are currently seeing in our government and policies. It became crucial for people to speak up and take action. Firebrand atheism played a significant role in bringing awareness and mobilizing people.
However, one of the drawbacks was missed opportunities to work with understanding individuals and organizations, even if they were religious. Firebrands often missed these opportunities by talking at people, talking down to them, and burning bridges. This approach is counterproductive and indicative of narcissism, where there is no room for error or understanding. Firebrand atheism can lack compassion because it turns away individuals who might understand our perspective, even if they do not share it. It is important to refine our approach when necessary. We cannot always be confrontational. At some point, things need to cool down.
Engaging people and knowing when to adopt a firebrand approach and when not to is crucial. Once you embrace the atheist identity, you can adjust your approach. There may be times when firebrands are needed, but there are also times when it is best to tone it down. A constant confrontational approach can alienate people, even our own community. It can turn off other atheists and humanists. When it comes to policy and breaking down institutional barriers, a common, objective approach is more effective than simply being loud and confrontational. While there are times when a confrontational approach is necessary, for the long haul, a more objective and considerate approach is required.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final points on the difference between conversation and debate within secular communities?
Thomas: Yes, I believe in the importance of in-person dialogue and face-to-face engagement. While social media and written conversations are valuable, when there is disagreement, whether it is a personal conflict or a debate on an issue, it is important to interact face-to-face. This allows you to recognize the humanity of the other person and address the issue(s) directly.
I advocate for face-to-face conversations because they allow for the nuances of human interaction that written communication can miss. At the end of the day, we are all human beings, and this should be at the forefront of our interactions. People should not be afraid of it.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today, Mandisa.
Thomas: Yes, thank you, Scott.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 