Understanding Isn't Agreement
Updated: 18 hours ago
There are things I don't want to become more accepting of: racism, cruelty, and dehumanizing people, to name a few. But I do want to understand why people believe things I think are wrong.
Those two ideas can feel strangely incompatible. There is a fear, I think, that trying to understand a harmful belief gives something away. That asking Why does this make sense to you? is dangerously close to saying Maybe you're right. That looking for the experiences, fears, assumptions, or circumstances underneath someone's beliefs risks excusing them.
But understanding isn't agreement, and compassion isn't permission. We can try to understand how someone came to believe something harmful without accepting the belief itself.
There’s always more to the story
We know this in other areas of life. When a child does something hurtful, we're increasingly encouraged to look beyond the behavior and ask what's driving it. Maybe they're overwhelmed, frustrated, scared, or struggling to communicate what they need. Understanding the reason doesn't mean letting the behavior go. We can still set a boundary or hold them accountable. But understanding what's underneath the behavior helps us respond to the actual problem instead of only reacting to what we see on the surface.
The same is true when something goes wrong elsewhere in our lives. We look for causes because understanding how something happened helps us figure out what to do about it. Understanding isn't the same as excusing. Often, it's what allows us to respond more effectively.
Yet when it comes to beliefs we find troubling, we don't always approach them the same way. We hear what someone believes, decide that it's wrong, and stop there. They're racist. They're ignorant. They're selfish. They’re a bad person.
But those labels don't help us understand what's underneath the belief. They don't tell us where it came from, what experiences shaped it, or why it makes sense to the person who holds it. They can also turn our judgment of a belief into a judgment of the whole person, as though one belief tells us everything we need to know about who they are.
Get curious about what’s underneath
Suppose someone says something racist in a conversation with me. I can tell them I disagree. I can tell them I think what they said is harmful. But if I'm willing, I can also get curious. Instead of immediately explaining why they're wrong, I might ask, What makes you think that? Or Have you always felt that way? Or simply, Can you tell me more about what you mean?
And then, gulp, I need to actually listen to the answer. Not just wait for my turn to respond, but listen for what's underneath the belief. Is there an experience they're generalizing from? Something they were taught growing up? A fear? A story they've heard repeatedly? A problem they're genuinely worried about?
The point isn't to find an excuse for the belief. It's to understand what I'm actually responding to. If I assume I already know what someone believes and why, I may argue against a position they don't actually hold, answer a concern they don't actually have, or miss the thing that's really driving the belief. Understanding gives me a chance to respond to the actual person in front of me instead of the version of them I've constructed in my head.
It can also help to reflect back what I think I've heard before responding and ask whether I've understood correctly. That gives the other person a chance to clarify what they meant rather than leaving me to respond to my interpretation of it. If I can't describe someone's belief in a way they recognize as their own, I probably don't understand it well enough yet.
Disagree without contempt
None of this requires me to hide what I believe. In fact, I think honesty matters. I don't want curiosity to become a trick where I pretend to be neutral until it's my turn to convince someone they're wrong. I can disagree strongly while still focusing on the belief rather than attacking the person who holds it. I can explain why I see things differently without mocking them, questioning their character, or treating them as though their belief makes them beneath me.
But disagreement without contempt doesn't mean every conversation needs to continue. If someone is trying to provoke or demean, I may decide there's nothing useful to be gained by continuing. Sometimes I may need to speak up, set a boundary, or simply walk away.
There may also be times when curiosity asks too much of us. Someone who is experiencing racism, for example, may not have the desire or capacity in that moment to patiently explore why another person holds a racist belief. I don't think they should have to.
Understanding doesn't promise agreement, compromise, or a comfortable ending. We may listen carefully, understand where someone is coming from, and still believe they are profoundly wrong. But when there is room for curiosity, I hope we choose it.
Next: Working Together When We Disagree
Understanding each other is a start. But we still have to share communities, solve problems, and make decisions alongside people who see the world differently than we do.
