Episode 18: What is Discourse?

be even more diligent in weighing up these ideas in this context. There s a lot that we still have to discover, collectively, about how to best engage with public discourse. It s a lot more challenging than it first seems. And this is why it s so important for you to always remember that the views we explore in these podcasts together, are not authoritative. Engaging with public discourse, of course, is easy. Doing it well is a massive challenge.

But doing it in a manner that is BOTH effective and consistent with our principles well it s a lot harder threading that needle. And I say this because it is easy to get sucked in by the discourses of our day often for the best of reasons but it s easy to unconsciously adopt approaches that might not, in truth, reflect our principles that become political or otherwise disunifying. Figuring out how

to ELEVATE discourse well that s no easy task. And that s what we re going to try to grapple with in today s episode. So with that disclaimer and those guard rails in place, let s get on with today s episode.

Now the focus of today s episode is to tease out what we mean by engaging with public discourse. What is discourse? I want to start here by sharing a word of caution. What WE mean by discourse and what OTHERS in society mean by discourse are not necessarily one and the same thing. Now there s no one definition of discourse in fact, different academic disciplines define

discourse in VERY different ways. For example, from a post-modern sociological perspective, which is one of the fields which most actively dedicates itself specifically to the study of discourse, from this perspective there is a clear power dimension to discourse. From this perspective how you frame conversations in itself becomes the BASIS for power structures.

Power is constructed through command in the very framing of the conversation. So discourse, in this context, is largely about liberation about deconstructing and reconstructing meaning. Far from working to discover a single unified truth, it works to create many different relativistic truths. It s about creating your own truth. But fundamentally, at its core, it s about power it s about prevailing.

In other words, in these contexts, discourse is a tool a tool in a quest for power. And we enter into discourse to seize power for OUR ideas to prevail. Now by way of contrast, however, the discourse construct in science is very different. There, discourse is about a community of researchers, collaborating, sharing, exchanging, reviewing and scrutinizing evidence replicating studies together being part of a larger process of DISCOVERY. It s a quest to unveil and build upon fundamental truths.

It s the same word DISCOURSE but it means entirely different things here. It has entirely different implications different understandings of truth - different goals different methods different outcomes. So when we use the term discourse, what do WE mean by it? And it s not even about whether we re talking about something which is more like political discourse or something more like scientific discourse we actually have an entirely unique

and fresh approach to discourse. And our challenge is in better understanding and applying THIS kind of Baha i paradigm to the discourses of society. So what we mean by discourse is something entirely different than what others mean. And our challenge is to align ourselves with this reality. But before we can do that, we have to first understand what that reality is. So let s give this some thought because how we frame it will be critical to our subsequent engagement with such discourses.

Now, the answer to this question of how we understand discourse - is not immediately apparent. As a community, I think, we don t yet have a unity of thought on what our participation in such discourse really looks or feels like. We don t have sufficient experience and reflection on such experience. We may mean very different things which, of course,

is a recipe for us making lots of mistakes. And perhaps even more important it s a recipe for the risk of us getting sucked into the ways that society defines discourse rather than working to elevate society s understanding of discourse by aligning it with approaches more consistent with our Faith. And if I m being honest, I think many of us engage and interact with discourses today by coming into them - yeah - equipped with our Baha i principles and that s good but

I think our approach is largely framed by society s paradigms. So while we bring Baha i ideas into these discourses I m not sure that our approach is entirely consistent with how we SHOULD be approaching such discourse, from a Baha i perspective, despite our best intentions. Because we just haven t reflected enough on what Baha i engagement with the prevalent discourses of our day SHOULD look like. And by the way I m being self-reflexive here.

So our safeguard here, really, is to study the messages of the Universal House of Justice to see how THEY describe discourse and to then align our approaches within this framework. THAT s how we can be more confident that we re approaching our engagement appropriately. And this process of studying the messages is exactly what I did as part of the research

in preparing for this episode. I tracked down a little over 70 references from the Universal House of Justice where they describe the discourse construct and I studied these references to try, however imperfectly, to grapple with what discourse, from a Baha i perspective,

really should and what it shouldn t be. This included whole letters from the Universal House of Justice to individual believers who were specifically struggling with how to best engage with discourses on specific issues casting new light on the construct, at least for me. Now, don t rely on my study here. You should study this all for yourself. That s the beauty of our Faith, right! But in my own research, I see five different characteristics which prevail as themes across

these messages. I believe these five largely define what a Baha i approach to discourse should look and feel like. These five features which should define Baha i approaches to discourse, I believe, are: 1. It should be unifying. 2. It should be consultative. 3. It should be uplifting. 4. It should be principled. 5. And it should be constructive. Now we re going to need to discuss each of these features specifically, because each

has a lot that it entails. And in this context, we re going to together study some of the guidance from the Universal House of Justice that speaks to these. One small footnote though before we dive into that all. Now, I ve referred to this guidance as the way I think, based on the guidance, we SHOULD approach discourse. But to be clear we ll usually be entering into existing discourses

in society and we can t define how those discourses are constructed. So while our approach is an aspiration it s an approach nested within other approaches approaches which we don t control and this adds considerably to the challenge. We can t define how others approach discourse we re guests in their homes so to speak. But we can govern our OWN approach and that s what we re speaking to today. How WE should approach discourse.

So with that thought, let s dive in on the first of these features its unifying focus.

So the first feature we identified earlier is that our approach to discourse should be unifying in its focus. Now, I m going to refer to this as our supreme imperative it s the one thing, above all, I think, which differentiates us and which society will increasingly demand

of us. In a polarized, divided world where people are grappling with all kinds of problems I think they will increasingly learn that Baha is are experts in the art of finding unifying paths going forward in their attempts to address their problems it will largely define how society views us and our approach to discourse in the same way that you associate

minimalism, for example, with Zen Budhist philosophy. And, I believe, it will be this unifying approach which will prove to be our greatest point of contrast with other approaches to discourse which will remain, I believe, largely divisive and polarizing. If you only remember one thought from today s episode I hope it will be this idea that our approach needs to be unifying. If you get this one idea right, most of the rest

of the features that we re going to discuss will probably fall in place. So this is the one thing, above all, I think that we should strive to bring to our approaches to discourse.

Now there are numerous references in the messages from the Universal House of Justice that I studied to this idea, including this one: The distinctive nature of their approach is to avoid conflict and the contest for power while striving to unite people in the search for underlying moral and spiritual principles and for practical measures that can lead to the just resolution of the problems afflicting society. Bah Ւs perceive humanity as a single body. All are inseparably bound to one another.

A social order structured to meet the needs of one group at the expense of another results in injustice and oppression. Instead, the best interest of each component part is achieved by considering its needs in the context of the well-being of the whole. Now this is an incredibly profound understanding of reality that we really need to come to terms with. Society reduces conflicts to binaries to good guys and bad guys to us vs. them.

And we have been raised in those societies we have world views deeply woven into the very fabric of how we think that reflects this paradigm. And that s something we re going to have to work to reprogram because it s a view that is simply not in alignment with the fundamental truth that Baha u llah reveals that we are all part of one human family one organic whole.

Consider these words from the Universal House of Justice: In choosing areas of collaboration, Bah Ւs are to bear in mind the principle, enshrined in their teachings, that means should be consistent with ends; noble goals cannot be achieved through unworthy means. Specifically, it is not possible to build enduring unity through endeavours that require contention or assume that an inherent conflict of interests underlies all human interactions, however subtly.

So however tempting it is, however justified it may feel we have to avoid reducing the problem to the binary to feed the conflict. We have to work and it s hard work but we have to work to find and build unifying frameworks. Now now this hard in practical and pragmatic terms, but it s even harder on an emotional level. And I don t pretend for a second that this is easy to practice. It s hard to resist taking a side particularly where sides are so well-defined and where it feels natural

to want to support a side. But we have a higher goal and that is unified thought and unified action. And that often requires us to bridge competing interests. I d like to illustrate this by drawing your attention to what I think is the best example of this. As you all know, for over 40 years, we have been victims of an active campaign of genocide in Iran. There can be no question that our oppression in Iran is entirely unjustified

I mean, even in oppression we continue to be model citizens. We re even obedient to the government that oppresses us. We are oppressed on every level, we re jailed, our homes are confiscated, we re denied opportunities for access to education to jobs. We pay even with our very lives. And all of this simply because we choose to align ourselves with our Faith a Faith which is entirely peace loving, socially positive and which poses absolutely no threat, in any way, to anyone, anywhere.

Now how do we frame our oppressor? You ll find no vilification in any of our words. No hatred. No calls for punishment. While we do draw attention to their actions to the injustices themselves seeking to stop them we don t paint our oppressors as evil. We still recognize them as part of the same human family and we call on them to rise to a higher version of themselves. And tomorrow, if, for example, there was a change in regimes do you think it would be

Baha is calling for them to be punished? For their factions to be ostracized? For retribution? Absolutely not. Even in that scenario Baha is would still remain focused on what we can all do, collectively, to build a better society. Our beliefs are not hollow it s not mere lip service. Our beliefs have been tested and we ve demonstrated our authenticity. And THIS is why we are such credible ambassadors for

this unified approach because we practice what we preach. We don t vilify even our oppressor. Now I should also comment a bit on the path to getting to unified thought and action. Such unity does not require or entail uniformity. It s not that we all have to sing to the same hymn sheet. We want a diversity of views we want to explore problems from all of their

potential angles. That s a critical part of the path to discovering a truth. As Abdul-Baha reminds us, He says: Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

And similarly, the Beloved Guardian, Shoghi Effendi explains this: Truth may, in covering different subjects, appear to be contradictory, and yet it is all one if you carry the thought through to the end. And the Universal House of Justice explains how while initial difference of opinion is the starting point for examining an issue in order to reach greater understanding and consensus; it should not become a cause of rancor, aversion, or estrangement.

So the path to getting to unity of thought and action NECESSARILY requires us to weigh different ideas but those differences are part of the journey not the destination. And HOW we get to that destination how we maximize our capacity to get to that unified end THAT is a big part of what we re going to continue exploring today. So remember, your one takeaway from today s episode is that above all, our approaches to discourse must be centered in our quest to find a unified way going forward.

Now if being unifying is our goal here, a consultative approach is our means and method. It s the primary tool which empowers us in our unifying approach. It s clear that in the messages I studied, the Universal House of Justice clearly frames discourse as consultation. In fact, elevating it to becoming more consultative is a large part of the potential contribution which Baha is bring to the table here.

Here, for example, is guidance on this theme written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice: Concepts and principles associated with Bah Ւ consultation inform how the friends should interact among themselves and how they participate in social discourses and social action. Consultation provides a means by which common understanding can be reached and a collective course of

action defined. It involves a free, respectful, dignified, and fair-minded effort on the part of a group of people to exchange views, seek truth, and attempt to reach consensus. And later in this same message, they quote from Baha u llah:

First, we share ideas but we don t own them. We re detached from our views. They belong to the group. It s not a contest of ideas or a contest of personalities it s a quest of discovery a journey to find the best solutions to the problems we re hoping to address. Second, we listen actively listen - to all views. Here I m reminded of the practices of the Maori in New Zealand. When they have a community problem, they gather together

in their Marae their sacred community meeting hall. And they come prepared for a consultation that may last many days and nights. But the most important thing is that they believe the solution to their problem will be shared with them through their ancestors and it is the ancestors who will choose WHO to speak their wisdom through. So whenever a person speaks, they listen intently because THIS might be the channel that their ancestors

chose to speak their wisdom. You might not like the guy they chose but you listen all the same because you just don t know who the ancestors will choose. I love this practice I think it really illustrates the spirit of how we should be listening. Third, we don t know the outcome in advance. Now this is very different from the kind of political discourse that happens in larger society where people come to the discussion

with the outcome already baked in. And we have to be on guard that we don t come into the discourse with similar assumptions even to the extent that we shouldn t come to it so that our views can triumph. We have to be genuinely open to allowing the power of the consultation itself to guide the discourse. We re participating in a quest a journey open to where the consultation ultimately takes us. Fourth, consultation is participatory. We all have equal voice at the table. We have

no greater right to define the outcome than anyone else. Everyone s interests must be protected. We don t approach the consultation assuming we re standing in a superior position. It s a collective enterprise. Fifth, our goal is consensus. We re not trying to see an idea prevail with a simple majority we re working towards a goal of unified thought and unified action we want as many people as possible to share in the outcome. Now that might not always be possible but we have to

be clear to our aspiration here. Our aspiration is for the widest and deepest agreement not the simple adoption or prevalence of our ideas. Sixth, we approach our consultation in a spirit that is respectful, moderate, humble and courteous we ll talk more about that one a little later today.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, we seek Divine Guidance. We re seeking spiritual guidance to help find a path forward both in terms of applying our teachings but also in terms of attracting Divine Confirmations. So we recognize that the process is sacred. So for us discourse is an extension of our principles of consultation. It is not about power it s not even about us working for the triumph of our views it s not even about us

winning over converts to our Cause. It s about us interacting with the world around us in a spirit of service - as equal partners exploring and addressing the problems of our day - through constructive and unifying consultation. It s not about getting to a preordained outcome. It s about an authentic and participatory journey of discovery.

Now if unity is our goal and consultation our method being uplifting is our style. It s a reflection of how, ideally, we should engage in our consultative methods. On a number of occasions, the Universal House of Justice has called on us to elevate the very atmosphere in which we move . Any time I see a reference like this, I m immediately inspired and deeply moved. It s such a powerful idea. But what does it really mean? What does it mean to elevate the atmosphere?

I once had an employee at my company who had this kind of effect. This is a shout out to you Anna Kemp. I can t tell you exactly what she did I can t think of one specific quality that she exemplified I mean she was always eager to help others to collaborate I don t know what it was about her but when she left to go to a better job, the next day you

could physically feel her absence. Our whole work culture suddenly felt her loss. She had an effect on us that we weren t even aware of until she was gone. If we exemplify our teachings we ll be like the Anna Kemps of the world. We ll have a deep and profound impact in the discourses we engage in not just because of the content of our ideas but also because of the manner in which we engage with them. The messages from the Universal House of Justice that address discourse frequently call on

us to exemplify such conduct. To become a radiant source of wisdom to which people can turn for illumination, reflecting a humble posture of learning, a source for harmonizing views and shaping collective action, rising above self-interest, charactized by moderation in our deliberations, with humility as our watchword, enthusiastically offering an open

heart and an open hand, and championing a spirit of collaboration and service. Such discourse should be a free, respectful, dignified, and fair-minded effort on the part of a group of people to exchange views, seek truth, and attempt to reach consensus. And the Universal House of Justice gives us a gift the example of Abdul-Baha. Here, they remind us:

Under all conditions, the Master is your solace and support. For those who aspire to lasting change, His example guides the way tactful and wise in His approach, penetrating in utterance, indiscriminating in fellowship, unfailing in sympathy for the downtrodden, courageous in conduct, persevering in action, imperturbable in the face of tests, unwavering in His keen sense of justice. Wow! How inspiring! Now, this idea of the example of Abdul-Baha, I think, is our emergency short circuit solution

to guide us whenever we re uncertain about something. This is that break glass in case of emergency device, available to us. I remember Ruhiyeh Khanoom once used this example. She said: You know, imagine that you re not certain whether or not it would be appropriate for you to go to the cinema to watch a particular movie. And you re grappling with this. Well the test is simple. Just imagine

that when you walk out of the theater, you bump into Abdul-Baha. Now if you re ashamed at that moment then it s probably not the right movie. Now I love this example and I think it s the perfect tool for us evaluating and reflecting on our own approaches to discourse. Just imagine that Abdul-Baha is sitting by your side as you comment. THAT will be your guiding light. Do that and I guarantee you re going to elevate every discourse you engage with.

So unity is our goal consultation our method elevating our style but where do we get the substance of our potential contributions? Here, of course, what it is that we REALLY have to offer is the Baha i teachings. This is the substance of our contribution. I mean, I know you have a brilliant mind and all but, you know, there are a lot of brilliant minds out there in the world. What REALLY makes you different is that you re equipped with the Baha i teachings and THAT s what will

really make the difference in the discourse you re engaging with. So that s your goal to connect people to the truths reflected in the Baha i teachings. Now let s explore this idea with an example. Imagine, if you will, that somehow, through some kind of time machine, you got transported into the past into, say the year 1920. Now what makes you truly different to everyone else alive in 1920 is that you know truths about their future truths they can t yet see.

So imagine that you enter into a discourse about the future of kitchens. Well, as it happens, you know a lot about that because you ve seen the future of kitchens at least relative to those living in 1920. It s not an idea you re advocating for it s a truth. And it s a truth you may not fully grasp. So you start describing for people, for example, the future of ovens and you explain that there s a thing called a microwave oven that almost instantly cooks your food. You can describe

how you put the food in this metal box. How you push buttons on a console. Maybe the time it takes to cook. But your knowledge is probably limited. You may not know how it works, for example only that it does. You are equipped with a truth but your knowledge is imperfect. But despite your limited understanding what an incredible contribution to that discourse this would be, right. So we re in the same boat. We don t fully understand the implications of our principles

but we know that they are the very salvation for a tottering civilization. It s in those principles that we will ultimately find the cure for every social disease and malady. And this also speaks to the challenge. Connecting people to our principles requires that we understand THEIR needs before we try to administer our remedy. Baha i scholarship isn t about command over our Writings it s about our ability to APPLY our teachings to the problems of

individuals and society. And THAT requires us to understand the need before we attempt to connect it to the remedy. It requires command over both THEIR needs and OUR Divine teachings. In other words, like that skilled physician that Baha u llah tells us about, we have to first diagnose the disease before we turn to seeing which remedies best apply. And this

as the Universal House of Justice tells us is a skill. It s a skill we have to work on improving both by becoming more conversant in the discourses of society and being better able to understand and apply our teachings.

And finally, it s critical that our approaches be constructive in their focus. We need to focus on the solutions and not the problems. Here, the Universal House of Justice frames discourse as a search for viable solutions to humanity s problems, centered on constructive processes aimed at the betterment of the world and the progress of respective nations. Now, this is another big idea that plays a critical role, I think, in working towards UNIFIED thought and action. Focus on the solution.

Often, discourse is centered on feeding discontent. On the problem. On an injustice. On a transgression. But clearly, we have to go beyond the problem to find fertile ground where we can build towards solutions. Now in the Baha i context, I think, this means that we focus on the world we re trying to create and not the one we know is disintegrating all around us. So, for example, as Baha is we should focus on race unity and not on racism. I know they

sound similar but they are very different things. Racism is the problem. Race unity is the solution. And it is this focus on race unity on what we can do that is ultimately unifying. So where can we find a step forward even if it s a modest step? Because a modest step reflecting unified thought and unified action is better than a more dramatic step that lacks that. And this speaks to something else. Often constructive processes take time. They are built on modest

gains. But what we often want is something dramatic attention worthy spectacular solutions that will immediately remedy our problems. Building in a framework of united thought of united action often requires that we focus on more modest gains where such unity can best be achieved. And that s part of the solution. And so our goal should be to focus on constructive processes centered on finding solutions rather than just further fanning the flames of our discontent.

So we ve now discussed the five characteristics that I think describe what we should aspire to in our engagement with the prevalent discourses of society. But I think we should also give some attention to what we should try to AVOID what our engagement should NOT look like. And here, too, we have guidance from the Universal House of Justice: First and foremost, our engagement should not be partisan. This is crystal clear. We

don t engage in partisan politics. The beloved Guardian cautions us against doing or saying things that can be seen as evidence of support or criticism of a partisan political stance he even cautions us against making references to political figures to help safeguard us from this. This doesn t mean that we don t engage in fully participating in the search for solutions

only that we avoid engaging either in support or refutation of any partisan interests. Our goal is to help elevate the discourse beyond partisan concerns and interests.

Here we should reflect on this guidance from the Universal House of Justice: Bah Ւs have to avoid being drawn into the all too common tendencies evident in contemporary discourse to delineate sharp dichotomies, become ensnared in contests for power, and engage in intractable debate that obstructs the search for viable solutions to the world

s problems. Humanity would be best and most effectively served by setting aside partisan disputation, pursuing united action that is informed by the best available scientific evidence and grounded in spiritual principles, and thoughtfully revising action in the light

of experience. The incessant focus on generating and magnifying points of difference rather than building upon points of agreement leads to exaggeration that fuels anger and confusion, thereby diminishing the will and capacity to act on matters of vital concern. OK. Second, we don t resort to humiliation, ridicule, insult or any approaches which attempt to degrade others. Just as one can elevate a conversation, so too can we degrade it.

No matter the passions that a discourse excites, we must always refrain from allowing ourselves to become a degrading influence. Third, we should never engage in discourse with an ulterior motive. This is not a vehicle for us to teach or seek enrollments in our Faith. Our motivation must always stay centered on our desire to be of service. Yes we are applying our principles but we re not doing so to win over converts. That might prove to be a natural consequence that follows,

but it should never be our motive. We must always guard to make sure that we are being sincere and authentic to our motive for being of service. And finally, we have to avoid the incessant focus on generating and magnifying points of difference and instead, we have to build upon points of agreement. So, as a final reminder, today we explored five characteristics that should, as I understand

it, characterize Baha i engagement with the prevalent discourses of our day: 1. It should be unifying. 2. It should be consultative. 3. It should be uplifting. 4. It should be principled. 5. And it should be constructive. And remember, if you only walk away with one of these today, it should be the idea that we should approach discourse with a view to being a unifying influence. Thanks again for your patience today as we together explored these ideas. Again, we have

a long way to go in our understanding and command of discourse. This is an area we re going to learn a great deal about over the course of the next 25 years and my own understanding is imperfect even though I tried today to ground it in the guidance of the Universal House of Justice. So weigh my arguments but study the guidance for yourself so you can come to your own conclusions.

My point in sharing this all with you is to help sensitize you to the question what does engaging with the prevalent discourses of society look like from a Baha i perspective? If you re not asking that question, there s a good risk that you ll simply adopt the contemporary paradigms of the day paradigms which may not properly reflect our REAL potential contributions here.

Now in our next episode we continue exploring this art of discourse. Now that we have a better sense of what it is or what it should be we can start to explore how to best APPLY what we ve learned in better engaging with society. So thanks again for your company today and thanks, once again, for joining the conversation for social transformation. I look forward to continuing our conversation - next time on Society Builders.

Society builders pave the way To a better world to a better day A united approach to building a new society There s a crisis facing humanity People suffer from a lack of unity It s time for a better path to a new society Join our conversation For social transformation Society builders So engage with your local communities And explore all the exciting possibilities We can elevate the atmosphere in which we move The paradigm is shifting It is so very uplifting

It s a new beat, a new song, a brand new groove Join our conversation For social transformation Society builders The Baha i Faith has a lot to say Helping people to discover a better way With discourse and social action framed by unity Now the time has come to lift our game And apply the teachings of the Greatest Name And rise to meet the glory of our destiny Join our conversation For social transformation Society builders Join our conversation For social transformation Society builders