Talking to vs talking with

Several years ago, when I was working on the issue of drug resistant infections in South Asia, I spent time with poultry and cattle farmers who managed very small farms. They were aware of the new 'recommendations' that asked for a complete discontinuation in using antibiotics in animal feed. Without disputing the science, they had their own questions, however. For them, the use of antibiotics had resulted in growth of their business, and for some, this was the first time they were able to provide adequately for their families. Why should they move to something expensive and with a lower yield, just because someone like me from the outside tells them to do it? For them it was about putting food on the table for their families, not about following abstract guidelines that failed to understand their context or the needs.

The conversations were always polite and pleasant, and it was never about questioning the science, but understanding the lived experiences of people. To me the interviews also demonstrated something deeper, an issue of understanding and trust. I remain convinced about the need to substantially decrease antibiotic use, but I need to understand the options in front of the farmer too. Too often people in the science community blame mistrust on communication, and that is certainly a part of the problem, but I have come to realise that it is not simply the inability to communicate, there is also lack of understanding, often mixed with arrogance on part of scientists, researchers and policymakers.

This issue of arrogance and ignorance is particularly acute when researchers, policy advisers and academic scholars deal with communities who they dislike. In particular religious communities, students in madrassas and those who are associated with faith-based organisations are viewed as unintelligent and incapable of understanding logic or acting as rational human beings.

A few years after my engagement with the farmers, I had the opportunity to work with some colleagues in the government on health policy. One provincial minister, who was particularly passionate about population growth, would often discuss how faith leaders were the real problem. Most in the small meeting nodded, but then someone asked if the honourable minister had ever spoken to faith leaders. The minister responded, with a sense of bewilderment, "we know we are right. What is there to talk about?"

Somehow that episode has stayed with me, not just because of the arrogance of the elected official, but because I see the same thing playing out in countless domains of academia, policy and practice. I go to conferences on science and religion, where scientists talk about the need to talk to faith leaders, not talk with them. Scientists talk about poor communication on behalf of the scientists (which is an issue) but never talk about hearing what the other side may have to say. They think of lectures but not conversations. Many of my colleagues – particularly those who are on the left and otherwise passionate about social justice (or so they say) – think students at the seminaries are inherently inferior in their abilities, or incapable of understanding the world. They would make fun of the students, or their teachers, or worse pity them. In meetings that aim to bring together science, health and faith, leaders of faith-based groups are absent because they do not belong in such meetings. Others, with little training, speak on their behalf, many others come up with ways on how to 'convince them'. There is always someone who talks about developing a common language, but the idea is for them to learn ours, and not the other way around. The irony is that some of the biggest champions of this 'common language' (aka my language) school of thought write long articles on how colonialism imposed external languages on large parts of the world.

A common phrase these days is that the world is polarised, and that no one is willing to talk to each other. The problem is serious, but just as we would like to talk to others, maybe we should also think about listening.