Some thoughts from our colleague Prof Byron Bland, Stanford University.

In times like these- when social bonds are fraying and public conversations often feel toxic- we urgently need to rethink what civil discourse actually means. Too often, people assume “civil discourse” just means polite conversation. But let’s be honest: our disagreements today run deeper than niceties can fix. Still, dismissing civil discourse as ineffective misses the point. It’s not about being polite- it’s about being constructive.

At its core, civil discourse is built on two pillars:

Dialogue– to seek understanding

Consensus-building– to work toward compromise

These aren’t the same thing—and mixing them up can derail both.

Dialogue isn’t a debate. You’re not trying to win or convert someone. You’re trying to understand why people believe what they believe- even (especially) when you strongly disagree. Real dialogue allows us to explore tough issues with curiosity rather than contempt. But here’s the kicker: true understanding may actually deepen disagreement. And that’s okay. It’s still progress.

Consensus-building, on the other hand, is about finding common ground. It requires compromise- not just a middle-ground solution, but a mindset shift: recognizing the legitimacy of opposing views and accepting that we might not get everything we want. That’s where concessions come in.

If we want to live in societies where we can disagree without falling apart, we need to reclaim these tools. Not to silence differences- but to face them with courage and respect.

Let’s stop mistaking shouting matches or shallow politeness for real engagement.

Let’s talk, listen, and rebuild- one honest conversation at a time.