Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
I would like to start with what I thought was missing from this book: (1) explicit discussion that there are people out there who hold beliefs that question the humanity and basic rights of other humans, and (2) discussion of experiences where her approach to civil discourse has failed.
Now that I have that out of the way, I think that the author has done a great job laying out multiple approaches to civil discourse that encourages people to be curious, allow for differences in ideology, and step outside their comfort zones to speak with people who hold different beliefs and values in an attempt to learn or better understand the why behind their beliefs. This book is a strong first step or first read for people who have no idea where to start in civil discourse. As an educator, I would highly recommend this book for common reads at the senior year of high school and first-second year of college level. This book could also be beneficial to “grown ups” who have never had conversations like this but want to.
I understand the criticisms that suggest that the author is essentially writing in a rainbows and butterflies world - there were moments that I had to turn my cynicism down after thinking “oh, because it’s that easy, huh?”
Overall, I do think more people should read this book. I also think more people should read this book with an open mind.
Now that I have that out of the way, I think that the author has done a great job laying out multiple approaches to civil discourse that encourages people to be curious, allow for differences in ideology, and step outside their comfort zones to speak with people who hold different beliefs and values in an attempt to learn or better understand the why behind their beliefs. This book is a strong first step or first read for people who have no idea where to start in civil discourse. As an educator, I would highly recommend this book for common reads at the senior year of high school and first-second year of college level. This book could also be beneficial to “grown ups” who have never had conversations like this but want to.
I understand the criticisms that suggest that the author is essentially writing in a rainbows and butterflies world - there were moments that I had to turn my cynicism down after thinking “oh, because it’s that easy, huh?”
Overall, I do think more people should read this book. I also think more people should read this book with an open mind.
medium-paced
Ridiculous. Self-aggrandizing. A soup of buzzwords and blind acceptance. Absolutely atrocious. If I could give this negative stars, I would. Toddler language and drawings, lots of 'look at me' name dropping. A stupid trend book that will hopefully be forgotten soon.
In this book, journalist and facilitator Mónica Guzmán offers readers 1) insight into the importance of seeking relationship and understanding with people who have different political beliefs than ourselves, and 2) a toolbox for embarking on “bridging” conversations in pursuit of that ideal. Her relationship to the topic is personal and feels important: she describes herself as a progressive who lives in the liberal enclave of Seattle… but her parents, who she loves and sees often, who immigrated to the United States from Mexico, are avid Trump supporters. What do we make of such seeming contradictions that don’t fit our assumptions? How do we remain curious about how people reached beliefs that are far from our own? How do we live in loving relationships and community across difference when the stakes are so high and personal?
The book shines where Guzmán champions the power of curiosity and shares her illuminating personal experiences of respectfully, warmly, honestly connecting with people across difference. She has loads of expertise and practice in this arena, and it shows. I appreciate that the book is practical as well as philosophical: sections of the book outlined concrete strategies that left me feeling very inspired and energized. We can be transformed, often unexpectedly, by others as long as we remain open! The world is big and messy and worth wondering about! As someone on the left who also has loved ones that support Trump and conservative politics, a great deal of the book resonated with me. Still, the book frustrated me with unanswered / under-engaged-with questions about what is sacrificed, in certain contexts, by prizing the forging of middle ground over the dignity or wellbeing of people who are marginalized, oppressed, or harmed by certain politics.
The whole time I was reading this book, I could hear James Baldwin’s voice in the back of my mind: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” Baldwin’s assertion feels at odds with some of what Guzmán encourages. How do we interact with widespread ideas that are not rooted in fact, or that endanger us or people around us?
For example: let’s take the recent, dangerous, lethal conflation of LGBTQ people like myself with pedophilia / child grooming (an example not used in the book, but which came to mind for me as I was troubled by what felt missing from the text). That is now a mainstream conservative viewpoint. Unless I am misreading, the framework that Guzmán provides would encourage us to be curious about — and listen to, take seriously, seek opportunities to validate — those beliefs. Which… gives me pause! An example she does use concerns voting rights, where one person’s anger and fear about voter disenfranchisement campaigns (including Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election) is placed on equal footing with another person’s concerns about massive, nationwide voter fraud for which there is… no evidence. Is our path forward really to just indulge and validate disinformation for the sake of bridge building? To accept false equivalence and “both sides” framing at a time of rising white nationalism & authoritarianism (a much discussed issue in the media, especially since 2016)? To normalize viewpoints that endanger or dehumanize people? It left me feeling unsettled.
Guzmán acknowledges these limitations, but I wish there was guidance beyond acknowledgement. “I’m here to help you cross the divides you want to and not the ones you don’t,” she writes. “Choosing where to try to span these gulfs, and when, and how, is an entirely personal decision that no one other than you can touch.” Fair enough. I don’t mean to be too guarded or cynical about it. Questions about where the framework can become unintentionally dangerous just kept nagging at me throughout the read.
I really did enjoy a lot of Guzmán’s thinking about the nuts and bolts of quality conversations across difference, so in the end — would recommend for that. Take the good, and stay curious about the rest, I suppose.
The book shines where Guzmán champions the power of curiosity and shares her illuminating personal experiences of respectfully, warmly, honestly connecting with people across difference. She has loads of expertise and practice in this arena, and it shows. I appreciate that the book is practical as well as philosophical: sections of the book outlined concrete strategies that left me feeling very inspired and energized. We can be transformed, often unexpectedly, by others as long as we remain open! The world is big and messy and worth wondering about! As someone on the left who also has loved ones that support Trump and conservative politics, a great deal of the book resonated with me. Still, the book frustrated me with unanswered / under-engaged-with questions about what is sacrificed, in certain contexts, by prizing the forging of middle ground over the dignity or wellbeing of people who are marginalized, oppressed, or harmed by certain politics.
The whole time I was reading this book, I could hear James Baldwin’s voice in the back of my mind: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” Baldwin’s assertion feels at odds with some of what Guzmán encourages. How do we interact with widespread ideas that are not rooted in fact, or that endanger us or people around us?
For example: let’s take the recent, dangerous, lethal conflation of LGBTQ people like myself with pedophilia / child grooming (an example not used in the book, but which came to mind for me as I was troubled by what felt missing from the text). That is now a mainstream conservative viewpoint. Unless I am misreading, the framework that Guzmán provides would encourage us to be curious about — and listen to, take seriously, seek opportunities to validate — those beliefs. Which… gives me pause! An example she does use concerns voting rights, where one person’s anger and fear about voter disenfranchisement campaigns (including Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election) is placed on equal footing with another person’s concerns about massive, nationwide voter fraud for which there is… no evidence. Is our path forward really to just indulge and validate disinformation for the sake of bridge building? To accept false equivalence and “both sides” framing at a time of rising white nationalism & authoritarianism (a much discussed issue in the media, especially since 2016)? To normalize viewpoints that endanger or dehumanize people? It left me feeling unsettled.
Guzmán acknowledges these limitations, but I wish there was guidance beyond acknowledgement. “I’m here to help you cross the divides you want to and not the ones you don’t,” she writes. “Choosing where to try to span these gulfs, and when, and how, is an entirely personal decision that no one other than you can touch.” Fair enough. I don’t mean to be too guarded or cynical about it. Questions about where the framework can become unintentionally dangerous just kept nagging at me throughout the read.
I really did enjoy a lot of Guzmán’s thinking about the nuts and bolts of quality conversations across difference, so in the end — would recommend for that. Take the good, and stay curious about the rest, I suppose.
"Honesty, curiosity, respect."
I really liked this book a lot. It had so many great ideas and it’s definitely a book I will have to read many many times because it had great insights.
I really liked this book a lot. It had so many great ideas and it’s definitely a book I will have to read many many times because it had great insights.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
This was a book club pick and I was really glad we read this. This book is part political science nonfiction and part memoir this author uses empirical data and statistics combined with her own lived experience which melds in a very interesting way. Part of what is broken in our world is that people have forgotten (or never learned) how to discuss potentially contradictory topics and so we just don’t discuss them. This book is definitely recommended for anyone wanting to hone their critical thinking skills and learn how to have these conversations or how to have them more successfully.
Lots to think about and try. I really do want to understand the baffling positions of some other people!
I liked it, it brings light to an incredibly important issue in today's political discourse in the divide between Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, etc. Deeply important material.
But I did have a hard time staying focused and self-improvement is just a difficult genre for me to stay invested in and fall in love with, and the vast majority of material in this one has already left my brain. Worth reading for anyone who's a bigger fan and better reader of this genre than I.
But I did have a hard time staying focused and self-improvement is just a difficult genre for me to stay invested in and fall in love with, and the vast majority of material in this one has already left my brain. Worth reading for anyone who's a bigger fan and better reader of this genre than I.
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
