We do not want to imply that "being nice" is all that is needed to get "the other side" to agree with you or to reach win-win agreements.  Many of our deep differences are based on fundamental moral differences and identity issues that people do not compromise about  So conflict is still inevitable.  But it doesn't have to be destructive.

In our earlier essay on civility, we suggested people follow five rules for what we call "constructive confrontation."  These include:

  1. Separating the people from the problem - reframing the relationship so you are working with the other side to solve a common problem, rather than framing the problem as being the stupid or evil person on the other side (for the same reasons as listed above).
  2. Obtaining and using reliable facts.  This is a very hot issue in 2017, of course, when all sides are throwing around accusations of "fake facts!" and both sides, in different circumstances, refuse to believe science when it asserts "facts."  Scientists need to make an extra effort to explain their processes and findings in language lay-people can understand, and work to rebuild trust.  People on all sides of political controversies, meanwhile, need to honestly examine where they are getting their "facts" from.  It may feel more comfortable denying that climate change is happening, but "science" and "facts" are going to rear their ugly heads anyway--as we are finding out currently with a string of Category 5 hurricanes and almost unprecedented fires (and resulting air pollution) across the Western United States.  
  3. Avoid the use of--and be alert to--the use of propaganda and other deliberate distortions of information.  The real truth is difficult enough.  If we make things seem even worse than they are--to try to make a point--we just lose credibility and make problem solving increasingly difficult.
  4. Use fair processes.  Civility requires that public issues be addressed in ways that are fair both in appearance and fact.  Public input needs to be honestly solicited and considered.  Adequate time should be taken to allow both decision makers and the public to actually read bills that are being voted on, and provisions of these bills need to be examined to determine social, economic, and environmental impacts.  The procedures being used by the Republicans in the Senate, introducing one "health care bill" after another in an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (e.g., Obamacare) without allowing anyone to see the bill, without open debate, without waiting for a Congressional Budget Office examination of the impacts of each bill--is not civil behavior.  It is quite the opposite.
  5. Limit escalation.  Both escalation-avoidance and de-escalation strategies are necessary when in protracted, difficult conflicts to avoid making them even more protracted and difficult.  "Going in for the kill" seldom works--it usually just increases the resistance of the other side.  We have an entire essay on this topic, so I won't repeat that content here.  
  6. Limit the "backlash effect." People hate being forced to do things against their will.  So try to get people to act differently by using persuasion, based on broadly acceptable principles of fairness and widely-shared values.  This is often just as successful as force--yet it doesn't generate backlash.  Trading (hence negotiation) also works to get things you need without backlash--when you have someone on the other side who is willing to compromise. Force should be reserved for cases when it is absolutely necessary (meaning the other two power strategies have failed) --and then it should be legitimate uses of force--hence using accepted power strategies, not ones widely seen as excessive or illegitimate.
  7. Be Willing to Be Persuaded. Lastly, if we want people to listen to us when we try to explain to them why they should behave differently, we need to be willing to listen to them.  Put another way, no matter how sure we are that we are right, we need to be willing to seriously consider the possibility that we might be wrong.  We need to listen to and seriously think about the arguments that are being made against us, and consider why these arguments are being made.  Almost always there is some truth in what "the other side" says or feels--that's what makes it seem so dangerous to consider.  But if we do, we might be able to find a way out of our deeply divided society and into something that is more beneficial for everyone.

Heidi Burgess is a Founder and Co-Director of the University of Colorado Conflict Information Consortium. She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology and has been working in the conflict resolution field, as a scholar and a practitioner, since 1979. Her primary interests involve the study and management of intractable conflicts, public policy dispute resolution, and the dissemination of conflict resolution knowledge over the Internet. She is one of the creators and Co-Directors of the Intractable Conflict Knowledge Base Project (which is the "parent" of this website), and also co-created and co-directs CRInfo -- the Conflict Resolution Information Source. She is also one of the primary authors and creators of five online conflict resolution courses, and has edited and authored a number of books, journals, and articles on intractable conflicts and conflict resolution more generally. www.beyondintractability.org