Listening Activism

Has anyone noticed that The Economist has been in full-blown freak-out mode lately? The cover of the most recent issue nauseated me. It was an unhappy reminder that even those who pride themselves on high-quality reporting employ sensationalist methods when it comes to their own dogmas. Valid arguments aside, it just looks to me like another manifestation of the same old thing: people feel threatened, people bark noisily to defend their territory, and no one gets anywhere.

One of my deeply held suspicions is that humanity will never make meaningful progress on today's global challenges until our dialogue evolves into something new. Nowadays there are plenty of folks who can and do prop themselves up as authorities on issues that interest them. Many can legitimately claim expertise in their areas. But what good is it to be one more impassioned voice in a maelstrom? How does preaching your opinions to a choir of amens and hallelujahs capture the hearts and minds of everyone else?

May I suggest an antidote: a cultural shift from dictating to empathic listening. Passivity, of course, is not the point. Mouthing off on your high horse about what's wrong with what everybody else is doing and thinking is about as passive as it gets. Want to see some powerful and cutting-edge ideas in action? Let's coax scholars out of their rabbit holes and into the streets. Let's have reporters get their hands dirty in the messiness of human joy and folly. There is no such thing as a passive observer. There are no impartial third parties. All we have is you and me and we. How we communicate must respect this reality; the medium must be as compelling and as useful as the message.