SENIOR MOMENT

CIVIL DISCOURSE IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT!

Image credit: ATUL CHOUDHARY on Pexels.

By DR CHANDRAKANT SHAH

Last year in Desi News, I read an insightful article titled Must You Yell to Sell? The interview with Professor Randy Boyagoda, Provostial Advisor on Civil Discourse at the University of Toronto, focused on resolving socio-political disagreements through respectful dialogue rather than aggression.

Yet, I felt something was missing. Then I realized that a similar concept articulated over 2,500 years ago in Jainism as anekantvad (respect for multiple perspectives) emphasizes resolving conflicts through spiritual understanding and mutual respect. While my article on cross-cultural communication (August 2025) discussed how to engage across cultures, this one address how to resolve conflicts – whether social or personal – with civility and wisdom and explores the similarities and differences between civic discourse and anekantvad.

Although originating from vastly different contexts – modern democratic theory and ancient Indian philosophy – they both seek to uphold respectful engagement and truth-seeking through dialogue. Yet, they differ in their foundations, goals, and modes of practice.

Civil discourse refers to respectful, constructive dialogue among citizens about public issues. It is a cornerstone of liberal democracy, enabling diverse voices to participate in shaping decisions that affect society. It does not merely mean polite conversation; it encompasses rational argumentation, listening to opposing views, acknowledging complexity, and striving for consensus or respectful disagreement. Its primary context is public life – town halls, legislatures, school boards, media discussions, and increasingly, digital forums. Ideally, civil discourse seeks not to “win” an argument but to foster mutual understanding and civic cooperation, even when consensus is not reached. It is guided by democratic values: freedom of speech, equality of voices, nonviolence and tolerance.

Mahatma Gandhi exemplified civil discourse, advocating nonviolent protest while engaging in public dialogue that appealed to shared moral and constitutional principles.

Anekantvad, a core tenet of Jain philosophy, teaches that truth and reality are complex and multifaceted, and no single viewpoint can claim absolute truth. The word is derived from Sanskrit: an- (not), eka (one), and anta (end or side), meaning “not one-sided”. This principle encourages intellectual humility, tolerance, and the willingness to consider multiple perspectives. Jain texts often illustrate anekantvad using the parable of the blind men and the elephant: each blind man touches a different part of the elephant – leg, trunk, ear, tusk – and each describes the animal differently. None is entirely wrong, but none has the complete picture. Only by integrating all perspectives can one approach a fuller understanding of reality.

Anekantvad discourages dogmatism and supports the practice of syadvad (the doctrine of conditional or hypothetical speech), where statements are framed with qualifiers such as “in some respects,” or “from this standpoint”. This philosophical discipline cultivates a nonviolent approach to thought and speech, aligning with the broader Jain commitment to ahimsa (nonviolence).

Both civil discourse and anekantvad advocate openness to other viewpoints and promote respectful engagement. In times of increasing polarization, they offer tools to reduce conflict and foster dialogue.

Respect for diversity of thought: Civil discourse honours differing worldviews by creating forums for pluralistic discussion, while Anekantvad embeds it deeply in its metaphysical outlook.

Value of listening: Civil discourse emphasizes active listening and empathy. Anekantvad, too, asks individuals to acknowledge the partiality of their own perspective and consider those of others with sincerity.

Tolerance and nonviolence: While civil discourse is rooted in secular tolerance, anekantvad stems from spiritual nonviolence. In both, the rejection of verbal or ideological aggression is seen as essential to a healthy society or self-realization.

Aim for harmony: Both aspire to coexistence rather than conquest. In civic life, this means building consensus or accepting peaceful disagreement. In Jainism, this means recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and refraining from asserting absolute truth.

However, despite the shared emphasis on respect and plurality, the two differ fundamentally in philosophical basis, scope, and goals.

Foundational context: Civil discourse is secular and political, rooted in enlightenment principles and democratic theory. It is primarily concerned with governance and public policy. Anekantvad, by contrast, is spiritual and metaphysical, concerned with liberation (moksha) and ethical living.

Nature of truth: In civil discourse, truth is often contested and negotiated. It may be empirical (as in scientific debate) or normative (as in political values). Anekantvad, however, sees truth as ultimately unknowable in full – hence it discourages absolute assertions and values conditional statements. In civil discourse, a debate about climate policy may involve experts asserting clear positions based on data. In anekantvad, one would acknowledge the validity of economic, ecological, cultural, and spiritual standpoints without claiming any single one as final.

Application in conflict: Civil discourse functions in public disagreements such as debates over taxation, education, or immigration. It thrives in a structured political environment. Anekantvad is more individual and introspective, shaping how one conducts thought and speech in all spheres of life – not just public debate.

Methods of engagement: Civil discourse uses tools like rhetoric, debate, evidence, and policy negotiation. Anekantvad employs philosophical reasoning, spiritual reflection, and symbolic language, emphasizing humility over persuasion.

The following illustrate how these approaches would work:

Public health and mask mandates: During the pandemic, civil discourse was tested as governments imposed health mandates. Those opposing masks or vaccines were often dismissed outright. A civil discourse approach would seek common ground, focusing on health and freedom rather than labeling others. An anekantvad approach would go further, and urge one to understand the fears as valid from a particular standpoint, promoting patience and nonviolent dialogue.

Religious pluralism: In a multi-cultural society like Canada, civil discourse supports freedom of religion and interfaith dialogue. Anekantvad provides a deeper philosophical basis for pluralism: no religion has a monopoly on truth, and all sincere paths can lead toward understanding. Civil discourse ensures coexistence, anekantvad nurtures mutual reverence.

Both teach us that dialogue matters – not as a tactic, but as a way of being. They challenge the ego-driven impulse to be right and instead call for humility, openness, and ethical responsibility. Yet their origins – one rooted in democratic practice, the other in spiritual philosophy – shape their different modes of application.

In a world fraught with conflict, the lessons of both traditions are urgently needed. Civil discourse ensures that pluralism works in practice, while anekantvad offers a deeper moral and philosophical foundation for honouring difference. Together, they remind us that listening – truly listening – can be both a democratic virtue and a spiritual path.

Chandrakant Shah, MD, FRCPC, O.ONT., Dr. Sc. (Hon), Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, is an honorary consulting physician, Anishnawbe Health Toronto. He is the author of To Change the World: My Work with Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in Canada.