海角大神

At your last holiday meal, how did your family approach political discussions? Was there a firm prohibition on politics at the dinner table? Did one person come ready for a fight, to the exhaustion of everyone else?

If you鈥檇 rather drown in your great-aunt鈥檚 cranberry sauce than get into a political conversation with family, you鈥檙e not alone. A slight majority of Americans, 53 percent, find political discussions with people who don鈥檛 agree with them 鈥�,鈥� according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Only two years ago, almost the same share of people, 51 percent, found these conversations 鈥渋nteresting and informative.鈥�

As all signs point to an increasingly polarized political atmosphere, it seems easier to just ban politics from the holiday dinner table in hopes of keeping the peace. It鈥檚 not like climate change or blue-collar job loss will be solved at a family meal anyway, right?

Perhaps they won't, but it鈥檚 possible that avoiding politics isn鈥檛 saving your family relationships either, says Jason Jay, coauthor of a on breaking through gridlock. If we can鈥檛 talk about the issues that are important to us with our family, those relationships are guaranteed to be shallow, he says. But if we insist on talking about issues regardless of how family members react, they鈥檙e probably not hearing us, either.

鈥淚 think that choice, framed as an either-or choice, is the essential problem,鈥� says Dr. Jay, who is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. 鈥淭hat idea that you have to choose either 鈥榢eep the peace, but stall on the issue鈥� or 鈥榤ake progress on the issue, but, you know, steamroll over the people that I care about鈥� ... that鈥檚 a false dichotomy.鈥�

Rather than choose one or the other, Jay emphasizes having conversations about important issues that are still considerate of the other person.

For writer Ann Leigh, conversations about politics have taken a toll. While the family members she sees often are liberal, like herself, they still make comments that are hard for her to stomach, such as asserting that former Sen. Al Franken, who was forced to resign after numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, was unfairly persecuted. She feels a responsibility to discuss issues that are important to her, but that involves a large emotional investment.

鈥淚 definitely don鈥檛 feel as excited as I used to in past years to see my family,鈥� she says.

When to engage 鈥� or exit

It may be best to avoid conversations with someone who only wants to prove 鈥測our side鈥� wrong, says Jenna Abetz, assistant professor of communications at South Carolina鈥檚 College of Charleston, who adds that such conversations won鈥檛 respect the participants or the issues.

鈥淸If] the point is to prove you wrong in that way, or bait you in a way that pins you into a corner, you have to not engage with that,鈥� she says.

Sometimes conversations will go off the rails, despite people鈥檚 best efforts. In that case, it鈥檚 important to know when to walk away. Jane Timmons-Mitchell, a professor of applied social sciences and psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, suggests regularly checking in with yourself during family gatherings. How do you feel mentally, emotionally, and physically?

鈥淚 think everybody should feel free to exit from the conversation if it passes where their comfort level is, as a matter of self-preservation,鈥� says Dr. Timmons-Mitchell.

One important caveat: If a person鈥檚 identity is demeaned or considered up for debate, it may be best to avoid the gathering altogether, suggests Dr. Abetz. When political discussions shift to discussing someone鈥檚 right to exist, there is a risk of damaging mental or emotional health.

鈥淭here is such [a] thing as healthy family estrangement,鈥� she says.

And while it鈥檚 easy to take fixed positions on political issues, that doesn鈥檛 usually foster understanding or collaboration. For example, calling the federal minimum wage of $7.25 鈥渁n embarrassment,鈥� and questioning a business鈥檚 right to exist if it doesn't pay its employees more, is unlikely to lead to a conversation about solutions.

Instead, it can be helpful to personalize an issue, Abetz says. For example, sharing a story about a challenge that a friend working a minimum-wage job faced could help put a human face on a political issue.

Experts also suggest orienting conversations toward solutions by discussing interests rather than positions. What beliefs and experiences have caused you to take certain positions? You might believe that all Americans should be able to support themselves with 40 hours of work each week. And someone else may believe that small businesses should be able to make wage decisions with minimal government involvement because he or she believes those businesses hold value in a time when big-box stores are increasingly forcing them to close.聽

When the discussion is around shared interests rather than positions, 鈥渢here might be some middle ground,鈥� Jay says. 鈥淭here might be some new idea that neither of us could have come up with by ourselves.鈥�