When the 'Shoulds' Don't Match!
Principles to avoid it all kicking off #2
What happens when everyone in the room thinks they’re having the same discussion -but they’re not?
Not a tangent - not a rant about the latest Star Wars film. A shift to subtly different issues. It feels like one conversation, yet each person is arguing from a different understanding of what’s at stake. You would notice, wouldn't you?
So, a group has just watched a devised piece about ‘digital pile-ons’ and launch into discussion :
Jo: Look, free speech is free speech. You can't pick and choose.
Sam: Ok, but making jokes about certain things just isn't right.
Riley: The way I see it, some people just shouldn't be online if they can't handle it. It's a different world.
Alex: People should be held to account but you don't need to ruin their life
Facilitator: Right then, time to put it to a vote?
Put what to a vote?
We might be in the same space. We might be taking it in turns to talk. We might appear to be disagreeing, perhaps even passionately so. But look closer: Jo responds to the general topic, Sam responds with 'Ok, but...' - appearing to engage with Jo while actually shifting to completely different moral ground. Riley seems to dismiss both previous points by changing the context entirely. Alex challenges the group but from yet another angle.
They're taking turns, they're responding to each other's tone and energy, but they're actually operating from four different understandings of what the core issue even is: free speech, the right to dignity, online behaviour, and the meaning of accountability. On one level it's good that everyone's talking but these types of discussion are unproductive at best, polarising at worst.
Luckily there's a 2000 year old technique that can get us back on track.
Stasis Theory: The Practice of Precise Disagreement
Representing yourself in court was a way of life in the Ancient Greek world. Without contract law, almost every dispute ended up in front of a jury. There were no lawyers as such, rhetorical strategies were in high demand. One of the most useful techniques, still taught in law schools today is Stasis Theory, originally formulated in the 2nd century BCE by Hermagoras of Temnos.
Stasis theory uses four specific questions to pinpoint the 'sticking point' of a dispute by clarifying its facts, defining its nature, assessing its quality and context, and questioning the procedure for its resolution.
For our purposes, we're focusing on one key question: What is the nature of this dispute?
The core of a dispute is a clash over a specific subject. Ancient jurists argued about ownership, liability, and agreements, but most of the arguments we facilitate are about what people should do -what matters most, how people should act, which rules should apply.1 Recognising which 'should' is in dispute is key to a productive discussion. The Roman orator Quintilian divided disputes into four broad categories. Each one shows up differently in conversation, and recognising which type you're dealing with changes how you move the discussion forward.2 Let's see how they play out in our digital pile-ons discussion:
Four sticking points
Meaning:
These happen when the exact meaning of a 'should' is contested or unclear . People should not harm each other - seems clear enough. But does that just mean physically? Does it include feelings? Is a surgeon making an incision during surgery doing harm? In our scenario Alex believes in accountability but feels there is point where a line needs to be drawn:
"People should be held to account but you don't need to ruin their life"
You'll spot these when participants are clearly using the same word but mean different things. The way forward is to discuss what is or is not included in the definition of that term.
Priority :
These disputes occur when more than one 'should' applies to the situation. Should I be allowed to grow a tree, or should my neighbour be able to see out of their window. Should the government combat terrorism or should our phone records stay private. Sam appears to be arguing that a right to dignity is more important than the right to make a joke:
"Ok [people should have freedom of expression], but making jokes about certain things just isn't right [some people should not be subject to ridicule]."
This is a very common dispute in public argument. Indeed, it frames the need for recognition and negotiation at the heart of a pluralistic democracy. A tell-tale sign of a potential priority dispute is the use of 'but': 'Yes x, but, y' where the x acknowledges the legitimacy of one 'should' , whilst arguing that in this case y is more important. Recognising a priority dispute allows the facilitator to move to discussing the relevance or weight of the competing 'shoulds'.
No exception:
A third type of dispute is split between those who say a rule means exactly what it says and those who look to the intention behind it. "No vehicles in the park" - taken literally would ban a child's tricycle or an ambulance attending an emergency which is probably not the intention of the rule. Whilst this may seem obvious consider how overly literal interpretations of 'take back control' led to a swathe of racial abuse just hours after the Brexit vote. Or the proponent of a 'Zero Tolerance' policy who doesn't think it should apply to their friends. In our scenario Jo picked up on another very common no exception dispute:
"Look [we should have free speech and], free speech is free speech. You can't pick and choose. "
Jo takes a literal interpretation of 'free' (unlimited license), while others might consider the intended meaning (freedom from government interference)." You'll spot these disputes in the use, or rejection, of absolutes. It's less about subtle interpretation, as in Meaning disputes, and more focused on exact wording. In opening these out to discussion care must be taken not to let it become a 'gotcha' moment. Instead steer the conversation to the origins of the 'should' - what were the original intentions and, importantly, what do they mean now.
Uncharted territory:
These arise when we're dealing with something relatively new and are still working out the rules, norms or values that apply to it. Should vaping be allowed indoors? Should social media platforms be regulated like newspapers? Riley recognises usual frameworks might not apply:
... people just shouldn't be online if they [want to live by the old shoulds]
It's a different world [and different shoulds apply there].
These surface when you hear participants saying variations of "but that's not the same thing." Try: "What's the closest situation we've dealt with before?" "What would be the consequences if we treated it the same as...?" or "It's something new - where should we get the rules from? Who gets to make them?"
Sticking to the point
A group can only address one type of dispute at a time. Trying to cover them all simultaneously is a recipe for miscommunication and confusion. To make things worse there is considerable overlap between each type. Recognising which type of dispute you're actually having - and keeping the conversation there - is the facilitator's job.
The easiest way to keep a discussion focused on a single point of stasis - one specific dispute - is to decide in advance and use it as a launch question. Imagine you are workshopping the early scenes of Willy Russell’s Blood Brothers:
“ So maternal love on one hand... being able to feed the whole family on the other.
Think of one word that might describe how Mrs Johnstone is feeling?”
[Collect answers and pick up on variations of ‘conflicted’]
It is, of course, a loaded question, but it identifies the dispute to be discussed - priority. We can now explore reasons for which 'should' carries the most weight in this context.3 The group knows exactly what they're wrestling with.
The other, more difficult, approach is to develop the ability to recognise the nature of a dispute whilst the discussion is taking place, and then use focusing questions to reframe ongoing dialogue:
Let's just focus on what Sima said just now -
"Sometimes you have to break a promise".
But surely a promise is a promise. 'Never tell' means 'never' . Or does it?
This offers a lot more flexibility. The facilitator could run with exploring the no exception dispute whilst looking for opportunities to round off and switch to another potential dispute - perhaps the meaning of better in 'a better life'.
Key to both these approaches is the ability to bring participants' focus to bear on the specific stasis/point of dispute and stay with it. It means working with a group to develop discipline and manage expectation of the 'everyone gets to say their bit' dynamic that characterises so many 'open discussions.'4 In my experience participants soon come to relish the sense of satisfaction and achievement that comes from having clearly identified and explored the dispute.
Building on Strong Foundations
In my previous post, "Who disagrees with Jo" we explored how depersonalising issues creates more productive conditions for dialogue. When we can separate the idea from the person who voiced it, participants can engage with difficult topics without feeling their character is under attack.
Now, with the ability to recognise which type of 'should' is actually in dispute, we have the second essential foundation. We move beyond the surface-level exchanges that characterise so many discussions – the talking past each other, the circular arguments, the defensive responses – into authentic dialogue.
The participant who declares "People should be held to account but you don't need to ruin their life" is no longer defending their character, but exploring the boundaries of an important principle. The group wrestling with accountability versus compassion isn't stuck in endless back-and-forth, but working through a genuine priority dispute that deserves careful attention.
These two principles create the conditions where participants can engage with charged topics productively rather than defensively. They can disagree with passion, but also with precision.
As we continue this series, we'll explore how to build on these foundations – but for now, the next time a divisive comment emerges in your workshop, you'll have two powerful tools to turn potential conflict into authentic exploration.
I write the newsletter from various coffee shops, imagining I'm chatting with my subscribers over a warm cup. So if you ever find an issue particularly helpful or thought-provoking, you can now literally buy me the coffee that will fuel the next one. This approach keeps the newsletter free and accessible for everyone while still allowing you to support the work when it resonates with you.
Sources:
Harris, T., 2022. SNP hypocrisy has reached a revolting new low. _The Telegraph_. [online] 20 Jun.
Khaleeli, H., 2016. ‘A frenzy of hatred’: how to understand Brexit racism. _The Guardian_. [online] 29 Jun.
Kock, C. and Villadsen, L.S. eds, 2012. _Rhetorical citizenship and public deliberation_. Rhetoric and democratic deliberation. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.
Quintilian (1920) _Institutio Oratoria, Volume I: Books 1-3_. Translated by H. E. Butler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The original wording of stasis theory focuses on disputes within law. My use of 'shoulds' is indebted to Christian Kock's work on practical applications of stasis theory using social norms - the generally unwritten but widely accepted rules or obligations that grease the wheels of social interaction
I've renamed the categories for ease of use but the original Status Legales are: Ambiguity (Ambiguitas) , Conflict of Law (Leges Contrariae), Letter & Intent (Scriptum et Sententia), and Assimilation (Ratiocinatio sive Syllogismus)
Which doesn't preclude questioning the systemic context that created the need to prioritise in the first place.
Even with the best of intentions this so often results in pseudo-participation, a series of monologues during which no-one listens to anyone else - but at least they 'had their say'. That said I do not mean to deny the personal or social impact of a group of participants each speaking their truth in turn. Equally, I would not describe this as a discussion. If you're reading this far into the footnote you should recognise the internal dispute of priority that led me to write it!