(Image by Сергей Ремизов from Pixabay)

Recently I’ve been spending time (probably more time than I ought to be spending) reading articles about the ‘traditional architecture’ movement, and the debates between its proponents and their modernist counterparts. It occurs to me that there are lessons from this debate that can be applied to our goal of having better conversations. A few points…

One of the things we emphasise in conversations workshops is the importance of giving ground. If a proponent of traditional architecture admits that yes, some example of said architecture are pretty awful (e.g. here and here), their modernist interlocutor will probably be more likely to engage with them – and give some ground of their own. (And as architect Rowan Moore points out, the two factions have plenty in common.) The more common ground you can find, the better. 

Assume good faith. As a general rule, I’ve found that when you assume good faith on the part of your interlocutor – and demonstrate this – they will respond in kind. Some proponents of traditional architecture talk as if modernist architects deliberately design ugly, unliveable buildings (because, I don’t know, they’re sadists or something). This rules out the possibility of dialogue. If it becomes clear that your interlocutor is not interacting in good faith, be prepared to (politely) cut your losses and walk away.

Don’t straw man. This is perhaps a greater problem with, for instance, Twitter debates than in-person conversations, but it’s still worth bearing in mind. Listen to what your interlocutor is actually saying, not what you think (or want to think) they’re saying. Britain’s now King Charles, possibly the most polarising figure in the traditional architecture debate, could be accused of straw manning when he criticised British architects for designing council tower blocks – something they had long since stopped doing. What straw men do you use, perhaps unwittingly?

Following on from this, actually listen, full stop. So often, as Stephen Covey said, ‘we do not listen to understand; we listen to reply’. This interaction between a modernist architect and a traditionalist is refreshing because you can see that they’re both paying attention to what the other is saying. 

Finally, demonstrate diversity. Although it might not look it, the pro-life movement is a diverse one. When we interviewed Terrisa Bukovinac a couple of years ago (here and here), this was one of her tips. This might seem blindingly obvious, but I think it’s fair to say that some – perhaps many – people regard being pro-life as part of an ideological package: i.e., I hold this view because this is what people like me think. (Though maybe I’m straw-manning.) The traditional architecture movement is conscious of this. Some of its most prominent proponents, like Michael Diamant keen to point out the diversity of the Scandinavian ‘Architectural Uprising’ movement. Like being pro-life, traditional architecture is often caricatured as the preserve of conservatives, even of the far right. (Which is not to say there aren’t far rightists in the traditional architecture movement, or indeed in the pro-life movement.) It’s important to show that you don’t have to have certain views on other issues to be pro-life. (This ties in with the point above about finding common ground.) New to our website? Looking to have better conversations about abortion? We have no shortage of blog posts on the subject! See here, here and here for starters.

Cian