Truth in Relationships and Democracy

Relationships and democracy both rely on respect for truth. Either will break down if one side is unwilling to accept that the other side’s version of truth has validity. The opposing sides become distanced from each other and move towards toxic polarization. If I believe my own version of truth to be the only version firmly grounded in reality, then I am tempted to dismiss your version as wrong or, worse yet, evil. I get stuck in a world view of rights and wrongs, truths and lies, winners and losers. As a result, I have grave difficulty finding the common ground that is essential to both relationships and democracy.

How could something seemingly so fundamental as truth be so complicated and contested?

What is Truth?

Dictionary.com defines truth in terms of “the true or actual state of the matter; conformity with fact or reality; a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, or principle”. These definitions leave little room for disagreement about truth. Merriam-Webster provides a little more wiggle room when it defines truth as “a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true”. Wikipedia takes an even broader view where it states “In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.”

In both relationships and democracy, there is a lot more to truth than the childlike equation “truth = fact”. In reality, it also encompasses the things we “hold to be true”.  Therein lies the challenge.

What is Post-Truth?

To complicate matters, Oxford Dictionary adopted the term post-truth as its 2016 word of the year. Oxford classifies post-truth as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. “Post” in this context means truth has become unimportant or irrelevant as opposed to the time after which truth has been established. The term post-truth is often associated with politics. Although the term has been around for some time, its usage spiked sharply in the context of the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election.

In a 2016 article about post-truth politics, The Economist describes post-truth as the “reliance on assertions that ‘feel true’ but have no basis in fact”. The term implies that “truth is not falsified, or contested, but of secondary importance”. The article goes on to make the argument that post-truth does more to reinforce prejudices than to convince opponents. Although the author singles out Donald Trump as the leading exponent of post-truth politics, he doesn’t have a patent on post-truth. Many people from all sides resort to it when a logical, evidence-based argument does not serve their purpose.

Is it any wonder we are so confused and divided?

Types of Truth

The Human Systems Dynamic Institute provides some clarity in a paper called Four Truths.

• First, objective truth refers to that which exists and can be proved in the physical world. It relies on the evidence of data. For example, “the sun moves across the sky each day”.
• Second, normative truth is what we as a group agree is true. Dialogue and agreement serve as evidence . “English speakers agree to use the term ‘day’ to name that time when the sky is lit by the sun.”
• Third, subjective truth is how individuals see and experience the world, as in “today is a good day for me”. Subjective truth derives its evidence from stories.
• Fourth, complex truth recognizes the validity of each of truths 1-3 and allows us to focus on the one that is most useful at a given time. Its evidence is the adaptive action that arises from it. For example, “The sun is up; the day is bright. Today is a good day for Mom, so let’s take advantage of that and ask for ice cream for dinner”.

In addition to the four described above I would add a fifth called spiritual truth. Faith is the evidence of spiritual truth. It is the kind of truth that says, “I can’t prove it, but I believe it because life makes no sense to me without it”.

Each type of truth is important in both relationships and democracy. We can’t reach common ground with another when we are blind to or dismissive of the type of truth they are telling.

Truth in Relationships

Healthy relationships rely on the thoughtful understanding of each party’s truth by the other party. What is the other person’s truth? How did they arrive at it given their own unique life experience? Which of the four truth types are they defending when a conflict arises?

Likewise, healthy relationships require that each party has good insight into its own truths. What are my truths? How did I arrive at them? Which of the four truth types am I defending when a conflict arises?

Trying to talk someone out of his or her truth often leads to impasse and relationship breakdown. On the flip side, acknowledging a person’s truth makes it easier for them to question and reconsider it.

In The Power of Speaking Our Truth in Intimate Relationships, Marlena Tillhon does a wonderful job of explaining the importance of subjective truth in relationships. I encourage you to read her post. In it, Tillhon looks at truth-telling mostly from the point of view of the speaker. However, her points are equally relevant to the listener’s point of view. Not only must the speaker be brave enough to tell her truth, but also the listener must be concerned enough to hear it with an open mind and heart.

According to Tillhon, “Denial [of subjective truth] leaves us inert, passive, inactive. There is no motion in denial. No movement. No change.” She goes on to say that “Once we step into our truth and our own experience, everything changes. We stop blaming, stop prosecuting, and stop chasing. Instead, we start to open up to life ….”

Getting there requires acceptance of the premise that “there can be 1 situation, and if there are 6 people involved, there will be 6 different stories. They are all valid.”

Truth in Democracy

As in relationships, the inability to acknowledge and engage with the other side’s truth leads to existential crisis for democracies as well. Think of democracy as a mega relationship. Productive debate is impossible until we understand and acknowledge the validity of the truths that underly each other’s positions. We don’t have to agree with the other person’s claims and conclusions about objective or normative truth, but we must understand and empathize with each other’s subjective truths if we are to reach common ground.

Sophia Rosenfeld, in an opinion piece entitled Why Truth Matters for Democracy, summarizes it this way. “Conventional wisdom has it that for democracy to work, it is essential that we — the citizens — agree in some minimal way about what reality looks like. We are not, of course, all required to think the same way about big questions, or believe the same things, or hold the same values; in fact, it is expected that we won’t. But somehow or other, we need to have acquired some very basic, shared understanding about what causes what, what’s broadly desirable, what’s dangerous, and how to characterize what’s already happened.”

The United States Declaration of Independence starts with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. Literally speaking, complex truth is never self-evident. By its nature, we constantly debate it and fight over it. Productive dialogue leads to deeper truth in both relationships and democracy. When our own truth blinds us to the truths of the other side, the debate ceases to move towards common ground. Instead it leads to destructive polarization. Consequently, everyone loses.

Conclusion

For relationships and democracies to succeed, we must proceed with our eyes and minds wide open. We must listen first to understand the other side before we react to it. Listening entails setting aside our own assumptions, conclusions, and biases while we focus intently on the other side. It involves restating what we hear and asking for confirmation that we understood correctly. The effective listener steps into the life experience and circumstances of the other with genuine empathy. He finds the dignity that lies therein. In return he must speak his own truth openly and honestly.

As a word of caution, this kind of dialogue does not lend itself well to the asynchronous communication that occurs on social media and electronic devices.

Ultimately, we all want the same things. We all want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all want to know that we matter, that we belong, and that we are free to choose our own way in life. When we open ourselves up to see these needs and desires in each other we gravitate to the common ground that is the basis for both relationships and democracy.

If animosity and alienation make it hard to take the first step, consider doing it for the sake of the relationship or on a broader scale for democracy. Dignity Dialogues offers a variety of services to facilitate the process.