Listening as a Political Act

"You don't need eyes to see.  You need vision."  (Faithless, Reverence)  Similarly, you don't need ears to hear.  You need to listen.

We usually talk about the importance of listening in interpersonal situations, so it wasn't until I read this description of a consensus building process as a form of decision making and governance that I realized that listening can solve one of the most difficult aspects of any majority-rule democratic process:

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/01/16/consensus-decision-making-a-critical-capacity-for-the-21st-century/

After the overview and theory at the beginning, the author lists several advantages of consensus decision-making, which mostly revolve around finding decisions that address everyone's concerns, so that everyone feels like they are a part of the decision, rather than in opposition to it.  This is where majority-rule democratic processes fall flat, with the problem of the Tyranny of the Majority in which the voting majority, right or wrong, forces those who dissent to nevertheless conform without a voice, thus fomenting their anger, and encroaching on their liberty as surely as any tyrant.

The consensus process provides an alternative, by ensuring that everyone's voice is heard, and that the group decisions address (if not resolve) all concerns.  The author points out that achieving this "buy-in … from everyone in the group" and shared agreement "requires effective listening skills, and the more people who practice this, the better off we’ll all be."  If people were more in the habit of listening, rather than merely "articulate[ing] and stake[ing] out their own positions and not listen[ing] to others’ [positions]," not only would the liberty of all people be much more secure, but our strength as a culture would be greater.

Reading this immediately put me in mind of Joe Mauricio's dyads – those pair-group question-response activities that he does in most of his classes, which so directly confront the shyness in some of us, but which ultimately give us the opportunity to practice listening without judgment, and perhaps understanding outside our own perspective.  Listening also often comes up in John Baker's classes, in which he discusses the three levels of active listening, and strategies for learning the higher levels.  (N.B.: that link has the level numbers reversed from usual convention)

By contrast, consider this Fox News interview with Bill Nye "The Science Guy":

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201108290025

It isn't especially remarkable for Bill Nye, or for the climate change science that he tries to talk about, and it may not even be remarkable for the anchor's behavior, as I'm sure Fox News anchors behave this way 24/7.  It is, however, an excellent example of how to not listen, when you intentionally don't want to understand the speakers' points or give them the opportunity to convey the information they have or their point of view.  The interview is thus an excellent example of how to squash dissent by not listening.   (… and, yes, I'm sure you could find even better examples…)  Fox News is not merely an instrument to spread propaganda; by the example set by their anchors, they are destroying the very foundation of the process that might save our liberty, and our nation.

All of this is to say that as the Occupy Wall St. Meditation group goes about the "groundings" to help occupiers remain calm and motivated, there's also an opportunity not just to teach listening skills that facilitate consensus decision making, but to provide a concrete example of how developing one's own personal skills and sanity through meditation, contemplation, and practice can be a deeply political act, which can create a more just society, and thus ultimately be for the benefit of others.