07-03-24 Interview - Diana McLain Smith on her new book

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
The discourse in our country, nobodywould argue is in a good place right
now. And my next guest isn'tjust talking about it, she is talking
about ways to fix it. DianaMcClain smith has worked on organizational conflict for
years, turning conflict into a forcefor good and change within a business,
until she decided to find out couldI apply these principles to our political process

(00:23):
her new book, Remaking the Spacebetween Us, How Citizens can work together
to build a better future for all. Diana McLain smith, Welcome to the
show. Thank you so much forhaving me, Mandy, delighted to be
here. Well, you know,you and I were just chatting off the
air, and I think one ofthe reasons that makes your book so timely
is that we are in the midstof what feels like the prickliest election cycle

(00:48):
I can remember. And that's theword, because it doesn't matter what side
you're on, someone on the otherside hates you for something, and it
just feels very visceral in this lilatelection cycle. And so when I see
a pitch for a book called Remakingthe Space between Us, How citizens can
work together to build a better futurefor all, I'm like, okay,
I'm in what do I need toknow here? So tell me a little

(01:11):
bit about how did this come about? Well, you know, during the
pandemic, I noticed the deterioration ofthe political discourse and the conflict was getting
increasingly intense and most remarkable, verypersonal. It was no longer just a
conflict about ideas or policies. Itwas a conflict about people's motives, people's

(01:34):
character, People were stupid. Imean, the vitriol became increasingly intense.
And I came across a study byMore in Common, which I highly recommend
people check out. And what wasfascinating about it is that they discovered that
eighty seven percent of Americans feel thecountry is more divided than at any other
point in their lifetime. And that'snot surprising, but sixty seven percent the

(02:00):
resulting polarization exhausting and are fed upwith the tribalism, feel forgotten by the
political process because those on the extremeends are dominating the discourse and think it's
necessary to find common ground. Seventyseven percent believe our differences are not so
great that we cannot come together.In another study, they found out that

(02:23):
people overestimated how extreme the other sideis by twice as much. And the
more news people read, the moredistorted they were about their political opponents.
That got my attention, and Isaid, this is something that is not
just a problem. It's an opportunityfor us to understand one another better and

(02:43):
to turn this conflict into a countrythat can live with multiple groups rather than
just fight. Well, and Iagree wholeheartedly. And one of the things
that you know, we talk abouton this show a lot is is the
dehumanization of the other and how easyit is to declare the other side evil

(03:07):
and assume that they only wish badfor the world. But at the same
time, when you ask people,I mean, I have friends on both
sides of the aisle. When youask people about their own personal experiences,
they have warm relationships with people thatare not one hundred percent like them.
And you think to yourself, where'sall this coming from? You know,

(03:28):
and you address that at all inthe book, like how did we get
here? Well? Yeah, Imean, well two things. One is,
I think we've gotten pretty insular.All the research that I've done suggests
that under threat, under uncertainty andanxiety, and god knows, there's been
enough changes globally, the pandemic everything, there's been enough threats so that people

(03:49):
tend to resort back to their ownkind, their own ilk, and they
become increasingly insular, and they startrecircling their beliefs, their ideas, their
data, they watch their own TVshows. The more insular groups become within,
the more distant and fearful they've becomeacross. So one of the things

(04:09):
we're seeing is an escalation. Itmore insular, more distant, more distant,
more insular, and you get thisself reinforcing escalating cycle. So when
I saw that happening, I askedmyself the question, who's most likely to
change that? Is it the media? No? Is it social media?
I doubt it. Is it extremistson the left of the right unlikely?

(04:30):
Politicians don't think so. So thenI began to think it's we the people.
So I started to look to seeare we the people doing anything?
And when I started out, Iuncovered some organizations that were actually working very
hard to open up what I callthe mental space within groups so they could
introduce to themselves new ideas, newways of thinking, and to close the

(04:53):
distance across so they don't dehumanize theother side. And I began to find
there was a few organizations, andI found out hundreds. Then I found
out there are thousands. Then Ifound out there are literally hundreds of thousands
and millions of people across the countrydoing this and the media is not reporting
it. So I said, Igot to write this book because people need

(05:13):
to understand that we have the power. We do not wait till a president's
elected or a governor or a senator. We ourselves have to take control of
this and make the difference. Now, in this book, do you offer
ideas, concrete things that people canact on to be part of the solution.
Yes. First of all, Ioutlined some of the organizations that are

(05:38):
doing this work that I think peoplecould join or get to know. And
like Braver Angels, which you mayhave heard of, it's probably the best
known, where they structure debates,but they do more than structured debates across
sides. They train people how tounderstand the other side. There's an organization
called Not in Our Town which talksabout how do you create communities of belonging

(06:00):
so that you don't isolate people andyou don't engender more hatred in your community.
One of the most promising developments I'veseen is an organization called Starts with
Us, which was informed by workdone by Peter Coleman on what's called contact
theory, which is the less contactyou have, the more you're likely to
dehumanize, okay, and get distance. And so they have a series you

(06:25):
go and Starts with Us. Lookit up on the internet. They have
a series of exercises every day thatyou can do to open up your own
thoughts and then reach across to otherswho feel differently than you. One of
the things I say in the bookis we have to stop building cases and
we have to start building relationships.So we don't need to just talk with

(06:46):
people about our differences. We canconnect with people, build a relationship,
find common ground, and then diginto how come we have difference in view
and not just listen but ask questionsso that we understand or organizations like Starts
with Us help us to develop theskills to do that. Well. What's
interesting, and I've talked to someonefrom Braver Angels and Starts with Us on

(07:09):
the show previously, so what isalways interesting to me is that there is
a certain segment we have a textline, and people can send us text
messages at five sixty six nine outand generally speaking, it hasn't happened yet.
I start to get these text messagesthat are essentially a version of yeah,
but and they are yeah, Ireally want to elevate the dialogue.

(07:30):
But my neighbor across the way isjust a godless heathen and they don't want
to engage in any How am Isupposed to fix the problem. If nobody
wants to play my game, that'sa great problem. Great problem. I've
seen that for forty years in organizations, okay, and I call it the
waiting game. And it used tobe that people would say, you know,
the waiting game is just everybody beingsmall people and defensive and blaming other

(07:56):
people rather than taking responsibility themselves.What people don't see is that we've developed
a pattern of relating across divides,and it goes like this, I put
out my point of view, andyou counter it, and then I counter
your counter, and then you counterthe other counter and then and what we're

(08:16):
acutely aware of is what the otherperson is doing to contribute to the pattern.
What we are unaware of is whatwe are doing and this is well
documented cognitive biases and blindnesses. Wedo not see what we're doing to contribute.
Now, if we continue to onlyfocus on the other, not only
are we missing what we're doing.This is where conflict becomes a constructive force

(08:39):
for change, because if we startlooking at ourselves, you know what,
you start to become a better person, okay, a better citizen. And
I think we're all invested. Ihope we're all invested in doing that.
And so this is an opportunity forus to say, do I want to
blame the other person? Or doI want to have power? Do I
want to have con do I wantto be a better person? If you

(09:01):
don't find blame the other person,but if you do, then start to
look at how you may be contributingto the pattern. And one thing I
often do when I get in apattern like that, even with my husband,
and if I can make my marriagework, we can make America work.
Okay, all right, so I'llsay I don't say, honey,
you just did something awful. Igo. We have this pattern. I

(09:24):
get upset, you withdraw, Iget upset that you withdrew, You withdraw
more I get and so then wework together on the pattern and we become
partners in transforming the pattern. Andthat's where conflict can become a constructive force
for change. One of the quoteson your website, remaking thespace dot org

(09:45):
is we forget that our power ascitizens lies not just in our rights as
individuals, but in our responsibilities asa people for working together to build a
better future. That sentiment the onethat with you know and I always reference.
I believe if it was Spider Man'suncle who said, with great power
comes great responsibility, and it iswith these rights there is a set of

(10:07):
responsibilities. Is that something you addressedin the book, And what are those
things if you could share them withmy audience? Yes, Well, I
think one thing that we need tounderstand is that we are all products of
our history. And our country wasfounded by people who are breaking away from
England and establishing their rights as anindependent people, but also as a democracy,

(10:28):
and so rights was the most salientthing in people's minds and it continues
to be and I think that's absolutelyfair enough and should always be very present.
I think it now needs to betempered because we're no longer a uni
group democracy. We're a multi groupdemocracy, and that means, you know
what, that's not a moral statement. We are a multi group democracy,

(10:50):
so we got to get along witheach other. So who is responsible for
that? The politicians, I don'tthink. So it's us. We are
responsible for getting along with other peoplein our political body. I love this
entire concept, and you have anentire website remaking the space. Tell me
about that, because obviously the bookis connected to that. But is there

(11:13):
a way, I mean, youhave a join the movement, you have
take action. What kind of thingsare you what kind of snowballs are you
trying to start? And how canpeople get involved if they want to?
Well, it's a great question.I'm glad you asked it. I think
there's a coalition. Listen. Firstproject is worth getting in touch with on

(11:33):
the internet. They've brought together acoalition of hundreds of organizations like mine,
all of whom are working and tillingthe same soil, which is, how
can we empower citizens to take controlof the fate of our country by working
actively together to remake the space betweenus, which means opening up the space

(11:54):
within our groups and closing the distanceacross them and everything that I'm talking about
on the website. I also havea substack newsletter called Remaking the Space.
Everything I'm talking about is how canwe begin to break down our own biases
within our groups and reach across Andwe have hundreds of organizations working on that

(12:18):
problem right now, and it isvery, very promising. This election is
a very disturbing election, and we'regoing to have to figure out what's what
we're going to be seeing on theother side. But whatever we're seeing,
it's going to be up to usto deal with it. Well, it's
to the point that I made earlier. Here's the text message, Mandy.
What she's talking about is negotiating.The problem is that any more Democrats don't

(12:41):
give an inch when negotiating. Sothis is that's kind of the entrenched,
you know mentality. And I understandwhy this Texter feels that way, but
I'm sure that there are people onthe left who say the same thing about
Republicans. Well, I mean this, I'll go back to the more in
common and data, you know everybody. One of the questions in my mind

(13:05):
is how does she know that sheknows it? Through the news, the
media filters between us and reality.There's reality out there actual people who do
or do not take it inch.Okay, And then you have the media
filtering that. And what does themedia do. It's in a business and
it leads with what bleeds or,as Roger Isles said to Judy Woodruff,

(13:30):
once you get two people on thestage, one politician's talking about a Middle
East plan, the other one fallsin the orchestra pit. Who does the
press cover They cover the orchestra pit. Okay, that is how we are
getting our impressions of one another.We have to cut through that mediator,
either the extremist, the politicians andthe media. We have to put them

(13:52):
aside and start seeing one another faceto face. If after you do that
you say they don't give an inch, fair enough. But right now our
perspective of each other is being distortedby these players. Can I have one
more mo? Yeah, go ahead, because I just dropped my dropped my

(14:13):
mouth, so I'll have to findthat on the break anyway, Just go
right ahead, make your point.I love this, okay. James Fishkin
and Larry Diamond at the Stanford School, Well, it's a laboratory and deliberative
democracy got together three groups, onewith six hundred, nine hundred and five
hundred on three separate occasions to talkabout very very controversial issues. The first

(14:35):
one was five issues, immigration,the economy, climate change, well ball.
The second one was just climate change, a lest with voting rights.
They got rid of the media,they got rid of extremists, They briefed
everybody with bipartisan experts. They pulledpeople on their views at time t one.
They then put them in small groupsto talk to one another in roofs

(14:58):
of twelfth and then they pull themat the end, and the most extreme
proposals lost support towards the more moderateones. The proposals on the left were
the Democrats changed more than the Republicans. The ones on the right, the
Republicans changed more than the Democrats.Okay, that is great data that we

(15:18):
are influenceable. We will move ifwe get to know one another, we're
in a room, and we getrid of the people who are mediating this
conversation for us. I think thisis fantastic. You can find Diana's book.
I can't scroll love to where yourbook is. I put your link
to your website, remaking thespace dotorg if you want more information. Obviously,

(15:39):
now I've got that linked on myblog as well at mandy'sblog dot com
today. I've got your book now, so I'm going to be reading it
on the flight tonight to go seemy grandkids. So I'm interested to see
this. And you know, I'mglad, and we were talking about this
before you came on the air.I'm getting more and more people that are
pitching the show with things along theselines, because more and more people are

(16:02):
saying, this is not okay,this is not it's not all right to
continue the way we're going. It'snot constructive. It only hurts us.
And nobody likes it. That's thething. No normal people like this.
Only the hardcore politicos who would viewthe entire world and did I win or
did I lose like this, andand the rest of us are just kind
of being swept a long. Yeah, Diana McLean, I appreciate your time

(16:26):
and appreciate your book. Go buyit. I'll be reading it. And
thank you so much for your timetoday. I appreciate you. Mandy