n a time when public discourse often feels like a battleground rather than a bridge, the question for many change‑makers is not simply “How can I convince others?” but rather: “How can I engage with others so that we truly understand one another?” In the latest episode of Changemaker Q & A, I tackled this question head‑on: how can we have meaningful conversations for change — and why the goal should not be persuasion, but understanding and common ground.
Moving from persuasion to dialogue
Too often, conversations about social or political issues default to persuasion: we want others to agree with us, adopt our position, or correct their mistakes. But when that is the goal, the conversation becomes adversarial, exit‑door ready, or worse: alienating. In the podcast I argue that the goal of these dialogues should instead be to understand one another, accept that there will be difference, and to exist within that space of difference without necessarily eradicating it.
I note, for example, that many on the left who preach diversity often stop short when it comes to a “diversity of ideas and opinions.” The world would indeed be a duller place if we all thought and felt and acted the same way. Embracing difference is part of being a change‑maker.
Enter the Socrates‑inspired method
To structure this kind of understanding‑oriented conversation I introduced the core ideas of the Socratic method — sometimes called Socratic dialogue — an approach named after the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, whose dialogues (as recorded by his student Plato) sought to probe belief, reveal assumptions, and bring participants to clearer awareness of their own thinking.
Here are the key features of the method:
- Questioning as discovery: Instead of asserting “you should think this,” you ask questions: “Why do you believe this? What experiences have shaped you this way? Have you thought of an alternative?” These questions encourage reflection rather than push.
- Intellectual humility: Enter the conversation willing to admit you may not have all the answers, or that part of your position might still be evolving. As I say in the episode, I often tell people I don’t know enough about a topic to have a fully‑formed opinion.
- Logical consistency and refinement: The method invites both parties to identify contradictions in their thinking, clarify terms, and refine their beliefs. It’s not a superficial “who’s right” quiz, but a deeper “why do I believe what I believe?”
- Collaborative inquiry: This isn’t a debate to win, it’s a conversation to explore together. The aim is mutual insight, not to prove someone wrong.
These dimensions align with how modern theorists describe Socratic dialogue: an open‐ended inquiry that invites participants to clarify and examine their beliefs rather than to be lectured or persuaded.
Structuring the dialogue in practice
As discussed in the episode, a practical flow of Socratic‐style dialogue might look like this:
- Identify the claim or belief – When a person states a view, you reflect back in your own words what you understand them to mean. (“So what I’m hearing you say is… is that accurate?”)
- Probe with questions – Ask open‑ended questions: “What led you to that view?” “Have you thought about how this might apply in another context?” “What if the opposite were true — what would that imply?”
- Expose contradictions or gaps – Through questioning, inconsistencies or unexamined assumptions may emerge. The aim is not to corner someone but to invite them to see where things might not fully hang together.
- Refine the belief – Through the process, the other person often revises or refines their belief to accommodate new insights. And importantly, you yourself may revise your own position.
I emphasise that you don’t need to announce “we are doing Socratic dialogue.” It’s a mindset you bring to your conversations. And you also need to choose your moment: if you’re in a group where everyone already agrees and you’re just venting, aggressive questioning won’t help. But in a genuine space of exchange, this approach can feel natural and constructive.
When this approach doesn’t work (and precautions)
Of course, there are limitations and risks to this conversational style — I do not present it as a panacea. Some of the challenges include:
- Emotional resistance: If someone feels attacked or that their identity is threatened, questioning can trigger defensiveness rather than openness.
- Over‑questioning: A barrage of questions without giving space or clarity for answers can create confusion rather than insight.
- Power dynamics: If you hold authority (teacher, manager, elder) you must ensure that this method is used ethically and not to manipulate or intimidate. In these cases you must create psychological safety and avoid turning the dialogue into a show of superiority.
These caveats are supported in the literature, for example the overview of pros and cons of the Socratic method highlights the need for a safe environment and willingness from participants to be changed.
Why this matters for change‑makers
The reason this matters is simple but profound: when our conversations focus solely on persuasion, we reinforce division, trigger biases and emotional reactivity, and often end up talking past one another rather than with one another. In contrast:
- Approaching conversation with the goal of understanding fosters open‑mindedness, invites self‑reflection, and loosens cognitive bias.
- It builds mutual respect: acknowledging someone’s viewpoint doesn’t mean you agree, but it does mean you recognise them as a reasoning person worthy of engagement.
- It strengthens relationships: in social change work we often lean on networks, coalitions, dialogue. The quality of our conversation matters for the relationships we build.
- It invites growth: when we ask hard questions of ourselves and others we become better thinkers, better communicators, and more effective agents of change.
If nothing else, the key message is this: the goal of meaningful conversation for change is not to change someone else — it is to change us and to foster shared understanding. We live in a world of deep divisions. If change‑making is going to work, we need to create spaces where people feel heard, where views are examined, where assumptions are challenged — but where the other person is not the enemy.
By adopting the Socratic mindset of humility, questioning, and collaborative inquiry, we begin to shift from “winning the conversation” to being in worthwhile conversation. That shift may be small, but it may also be the difference between polarisation and progress.
