The visionary writer and activist James Baldwin once said, “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” I have often thought about this powerful sentiment and worn it as an armor to protect myself from racial trauma. But I come back again and again—perhaps because of an unfortunate optimism—to the idea that we can’t give up on millions of people as hopelessly lost to racist narratives.

“Conflict is a part of life,” says Nolan Higdon, a lecturer at Merrill College and in the education department at University of California, Santa Cruz. Higdon, who is an expert on digital culture, co-wrote a book with Mickey Huff called Let’s Agree to Disagree: A Critical Thinking Guide to Communication, Conflict Management, and Critical Media Literacy.

“Conflict, when addressed correctly, can be constructive,” says Higdon. “We know there are these hateful ideologies out there.” He adds, “We’re not asking people to get comfortable with a white supremacist” and their views. What he and Huff are advocating for instead is to take a “solutions-oriented” approach to conflict. “In a democracy, typically, the best ideas win the day when we engage in dialogue and try and change minds.”

He says people “are not born with” racist attitudes. These are “learned behaviors.”

“What we’re advocating is for people to figure out how to go about these conversations,” says Higdon. According to him, there are certain conditions that must be met. First, “you can’t begin to enter the process of constructive dialogue unless you have reciprocity.” One example of this is for both parties to agree upon what sources of information are considered reliable. If people disagree on what constitutes a fact, there’s little hope for dialogue.

Read the full article about "deep canvassing" to build solidarity by Sonali Kolhatkar at YES! Magazine.