To be a devil's advocate is not that easy. While doing so a person tries to defend a less popular view or a minority stand. This is not an easy task and also not that popular for obvious reasons. Some people do it just for fun as they love to engage in any sort of argument, but there are many good reasons to do this. I do this with my kids, not because I love to engage in arguments with them. Many times they really get mad at me when I do this, but as a parent, I think it is my responsibility to make them realize that there can be another side to every issue and they must be aware of counterarguments that others may pose against their opinions. When I challenge their stand my main aim is to know on what grounds they are basing their opinion: is it a very superficial and weak base like, just because everyone thinks like that I also believe in it, is it because of peer pressure, or they really thought about the issue seriously before reaching to their conclusion. By being a devil's advocate in front of my kids I make sure that they are not blindly following either me or someone without testing those opinions independently. My aim is to initiate that rethinking mechanism where they start considering alternative opinions that are contrary to their own.
Actually, I didn't start doing this consciously, it happened over a period of time. I observed that there are families who follow the same political ideologies for generations, just like their religion. They become so devout to that particular ideology that they can't even imagine that the other side has anything good to offer, it almost becomes like a religion for them. Parents and kids share the same political and social ideology, religion, dietary restrictions, and even superstitions. I felt that many families are becoming factories where carbon copies of humans are produced under the name of culture and traditions. I don't mean to say that following culture and traditions is wrong or parents should not guide their kids. I just want to emphasize that these things also should be challenged and refined to tune them with the changing times. Not every tradition is timeless and can survive the test of time, but if we make them immune from any attack then of course they will survive forever. This cannot be called the greatness of that tradition but rather is a weakness of that culture, society, religion, or group that failed to change with the changing times.
Being a devil's advocate doesn't mean you have to defend each and every unpopular issue. There are many things that can't be defended. My main aim is to bring forward unrepresented views to that discussion. If it is a pro-Republican setting I try to highlight some Democrat policies which make sense and vice versa. If it is an anti-Trump group, I try to present some policies of his administration that look very promising. If it is a pro-BJP group I try to question the performance of the BJP govt and want to know if their supporters are analyzing it in the same way or blindly following it. The list can go on, the real point is I try to project another side of the issue to the group which otherwise may not bother to look at it. I try to engage in discussion in such a way that they realize that the other side also may have some good ideas which as a society we need to consider and shouldn't ignore just because it is coming from our opposition. Opposition and diversity of views are very necessary for any society to progress. A society with monotonous views or where there is no opposition runs into the risk of living under blissful ignorance that they are always on the right path (which may or may not be true).
I should also give one warning to everyone who wants to try this method, the risk is that it might make you less popular in that particular group. People normally don't like it when their core beliefs or deep-rooted political ideologies are challenged. People feel uncomfortable when you ask really difficult questions about their leader, religion, or political party. So, one has to be really careful as there is a very thin line between being inquisitive and offensive. You might even sound arrogant to some (especially when you question some religious beliefs) or elite (especially when you are trying to defend capitalism in a group that believes in socialism or communism). One has to take the risk of being labeled by various names if you want to try to do this exercise, but I think it is worth that risk.
I think my kids benefited from this exercise, at least they are aware that there can be an equally compelling argument from the other side which they should at least listen to, rethink their own opinions, and analyze objectively before coming to any conclusions. If you want to test this methodology with your kids, friends, or relatives just try it, at least you will know the tolerance level of people around you for counter opinions if nothing else.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
Being a devil's advocate doesn't mean you have to defend each and every unpopular issue. There are many things that can't be defended. My main aim is to bring forward unrepresented views to that discussion. If it is a pro-Republican setting I try to highlight some Democrat policies which make sense and vice versa. If it is an anti-Trump group, I try to present some policies of his administration that look very promising. If it is a pro-BJP group I try to question the performance of the BJP govt and want to know if their supporters are analyzing it in the same way or blindly following it. The list can go on, the real point is I try to project another side of the issue to the group which otherwise may not bother to look at it. I try to engage in discussion in such a way that they realize that the other side also may have some good ideas which as a society we need to consider and shouldn't ignore just because it is coming from our opposition. Opposition and diversity of views are very necessary for any society to progress. A society with monotonous views or where there is no opposition runs into the risk of living under blissful ignorance that they are always on the right path (which may or may not be true).
I should also give one warning to everyone who wants to try this method, the risk is that it might make you less popular in that particular group. People normally don't like it when their core beliefs or deep-rooted political ideologies are challenged. People feel uncomfortable when you ask really difficult questions about their leader, religion, or political party. So, one has to be really careful as there is a very thin line between being inquisitive and offensive. You might even sound arrogant to some (especially when you question some religious beliefs) or elite (especially when you are trying to defend capitalism in a group that believes in socialism or communism). One has to take the risk of being labeled by various names if you want to try to do this exercise, but I think it is worth that risk.
I think my kids benefited from this exercise, at least they are aware that there can be an equally compelling argument from the other side which they should at least listen to, rethink their own opinions, and analyze objectively before coming to any conclusions. If you want to test this methodology with your kids, friends, or relatives just try it, at least you will know the tolerance level of people around you for counter opinions if nothing else.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment