I can still envision the scene more than 25 years later. The Boston dialect, the college bar and, of course, the obnoxious grad student with his ridiculous ponytail. In this scene, from the film “Good Will Hunting,” when an egotistical Harvard student attempts to outsmart and humiliate Will’s friends to impress a girl, Will steps in and turns the tables on him. In the ensuing argument (about the evolution of the market economy in the early colonies, of all things), Will proceeds to eviscerate the arrogant grad student and expose him as lacking original thought, merely able to quote passages blindly and regurgitate others’ opinions. Will is articulate, charming and quick on his feet. The grad student is left stunned, and the interaction ends as quickly as it started. As Will walks away, his friend Morgan turns to the girl, who has been listening to the entire interaction, and utters the iconic line, “My boy’s wicked smaht.”
Education is no longer about teachers lecturing from the front of a room while students—mere consumers of facts like the grad student of “Good Will Hunting”—dutifully record what is said. Teaching methodologies have evolved, just as medical techniques have moved beyond leeches and bloodletting. Rather than strive to create the regurgitating scholar, teaching now strives to help students strike the balance of advocating their viewpoints, entertaining the opinions of others, and understanding the value of compromise and consensus. Even more challenging, we seek to impart these critical life skills while the world seems to have forgotten them, with extreme partisanship making adults more likely to speak to like-minded individuals from their own “echo chamber” than engage civilly with those of opposing views.
Too often, differences of opinion today devolve into heated confrontations, and cordial conversations escalate into intense, bitter arguments. How is it possible that something as common as a difference of opinion leads to such uncouth and unrefined behavior? What causes generally reasonable and sensible people to lose control of their emotions, engage in juvenile and immature responses, and ultimately lead to mortified reflections on one’s actions?
The importance of civil discourse is, of course, not a new concept. The Mishna (Avot 5:17) differentiates between a machloket l’shem Shamayim and a machloket shelo l’shem Shamayim, an argument for the sake of Heaven and an argument NOT for the sake of Heaven, and explains that only arguments for the sake of Heaven, like those of Hillel and Shammai, are destined to endure. In his commentary on this Mishna, the Lev Avot, Reb Shlomo ben Reb Yitzchak HaLevi, explains that for an argument to be deemed for the sake of Heaven, it must be one where “the intentions of the disputants are such that through the disagreement, the truth should become clarified. And certainly, in the end, such a disagreement will continue to exist because the truth continues to exist.” What is clear is that to be deemed “for the sake of Heaven” an argument must be about pursuing truth, not about “winning” by advancing a personal viewpoint, manipulating data to fit a narrative or any other mitigating factors and ulterior motives.
Additionally, one of the most famous passages of the Gemara (Eruvin 13b) tells the story of one such argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, in which they were engaged in an argument for three years. Eventually, a “Heavenly Voice” (Bat Kol) resolved the dispute by proclaiming that although both of their opinions were correct—eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chayim— the law followed the opinion of Beit Hillel. The follow-up question of the Gemara wonders why Beit Hillel’s position was ratified if both opinions were deemed correct, and answers that this was because Beit Hillel treated those with whom they disagreed with kindness, humility and respect.
Our sages have left us with a clear pathway towards positive communication. Many tools at our disposal can be implemented to successfully acquire these skills, mitigate pre-existing biases, and overcome obstacles and barriers. In doing so, we can achieve mutual understanding and respect, conflict resolution and cooperation. Two such tools are active listening and self-reflection.
Active listening is a communication technique designed to foster understanding and strengthen relationships by “listening to understand” instead of merely “listening to respond,” where the listener is more focused on preparing a response rather than listening to what is being said. Active listening requires deliberate engagement to fully comprehend the speaker’s message, and if done successfully, promotes trust, reduces misunderstandings and enhances emotional connection, making it an incredibly valuable communication tool.
This process of self-reflection, of “thinking about our thinking,” can result in tremendous insight into our thoughts, emotions, motivations and behaviors through thoughtful contemplation and introspection. It can provide critical insight and understanding about our own values and priorities, and identify areas for improvement and growth. This, in turn, can lead to increased empathy, adaptability and consideration of the feelings of others.
The nature of disagreements and the ability to engage in positive and productive dialogue can certainly be accomplished, even while maintaining a difference of opinion. The resulting positive communication will ultimately lead to considering different perspectives, increased knowledge, personal growth, and greater respect and understanding of those we disagree with. Not all things in life are black and white, and it is important to acknowledge and teach that many things involve multiple shades of gray and that every disagreement provides an opportunity for resolving a conflict instead of merely perpetuating it. Every bridge built, despite a disagreement, promotes greater peace and harmony in a divided world and brings us all a little bit closer to common ground, mutual respect and collective understanding.
Rabbi Jeff Ney is the middle school director of Westchester Day School. He speaks on a variety of topics relating to Torah, education and psychology. To reach him, please email [email protected].
