From Civil War to Civil Dialogue

An interview with Dr Warren Farrell.

Written by Hannah Gal.

For over three decades, the picturesque California hills were home to Dr Warren Farrell’s couples’ communication workshops. Here he taught important techniques that saved countless couples from divorce, and guided partners toward a deeper, more harmonious bond. Farrell’s new bestseller Role Mate To Soul Mate brings the vast knowledge he has accumulated over the years within all couples’ reach. But the book’s message goes well beyond the romantic sphere. Role Mate To Soul Mate’s genius is that it applies the same method to all human relationships – involving family, colleagues and friends, and even fierce political opponents.

Farrell explains why our defensiveness in response to criticism is the Achilles heel in all our relationships, and how his “civil war to civil dialogue” method holds the key to conflict-free family dinners, easing tensions at work and solving the boy crisis. With presidential elections looming and tensions running high, we can turn shouting matches into informative, respectful discussions.

It is worth noting that Warren Farrell has been running the couples’ workshops in parallel to his ground-breaking books The Myth of Male Power, Why Men Earn More and The Boy Crisis. And the nuanced understanding of relationship dynamics that he gained through the workshops has contributed to his insights into the myth of patriarchal rule, dad deprivation and the crucial importance of family.

Gal: Role Mate To Soul Mate is essentially about creating a dialogue where none exists.

Farrell: It is about turning conflict into a dialogue. We live in highly polarised times where differing political views breed anger and disconnect instead of investigation and discussion. This is destroying friendships, poisoning work environments and tearing families apart. Tim Walz has not spoken to his brother Jeff in eight years, with the latter attributing the feud to Tim’s progressive ideology. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s wife is appalled by his support for Trump, and his family has openly denounced him over his new found affiliation. This division over political views is very real, we hear of many families agreeing in advance not to mention politics at any get togethers.

Disagreement over politics and ideology is nothing new of course. Colleagues, neighbours, friends and relatives have always quarreled over differing perspectives. There were even brothers who fought on opposing sides in the civil war. Still, today’s discord is highly tense, often rendering dialogue an impossibility, especially in the run up to a presidential election. Many families are a single Trump or Harris mention away from severing ties with each other.

Gal: Your book explains the reason for these conflicts arising in the first place. 

Farrell: This all stems from the Achilles Heel of all relationships – our inability to hear opposing perspectives without getting defensive.

Historically speaking, when we heard criticism, we feared a potential enemy and naturally built defences to fend off the danger. This was functional for survival but highly destructive for relationships. With our defences up, both parties feel unheard, hurt and unappreciated. When working with couples, I saw how this inevitably spirals into simmering bitterness and zero communication. It was something I was determined to solve. I knew it would not be a simple “quick fix” solution because overcoming this hurdle means going against our instinct. It requires an “evolutionary” shift as we alter our natural biological propensity for defensiveness.

Gal: This defensiveness applies to all relationships of course, not just the romantic. This is how we respond to all criticism including a different political or ideological view.  

Farrell: Yes, this is how we react to criticism from friends, colleagues, family and even a complete stranger that we encounter who holds views opposing ours. The methods I devised apply to all. They are essentially about creating an environment where people feel that it is safe for them to speak and where they do not need to walk on eggshells. They can speak their mind and be heard. It is an extensive program but just one example.

Since it is easier to hear criticism after we’ve been appreciated, I would have the first person start by sharing appreciations of the other person. Tim Walz’s brother, or RFK Jr.’s sister for example might recall a specific childhood story, or highlight their respect for their brother having the courage to speak up about his beliefs without fearing rejection. Such positive remarks send the message to the other person that you are not hostile and that you are listening.

Gal: Is this part of seeing the virtue before it turned into a vice?

Farrell: I argue that every virtue taken to its extreme becomes a vice. Spotting the virtue in the other person does not mean that you accept their argument, just that you see where they are coming from. Something else that Walz’s and RFK Jr.’s siblings can do, before expressing their aversion to their brother’s perspective, is search for the original virtue that motivates their brother. Jeff, as a critic of progressive feminism, would search for the sister or daughter whose life is more fulfilled by opportunities feminism helped create; Tim Walz, as a progressive feminist, might search for the virtue of Jeff emphasising the importance of dad and faith to both children and their mother.

Another Role Mate To Soul Mate exercise sees one person airing their troubles or ideas to the other, who is actively listening. Walz and RFK Jr.’s siblings, for example would listen to their brother and signal when they feel completely receptive and secure, if they ‘lose it’ they will say ‘Hold' and only resume the conversation after they feel re-centred. Once Walz and RFK Jr.’s siblings have heard their brother, they would share what they heard and ask if they distorted or missed anything. Once Walz and RFK Jr. feel completely heard, they would reverse the process for their siblings. None of this requires anyone to change their mind or perspective. You can still argue and fight for your beliefs. The exercise is about leaving someone they care for feeling understood and seen in the way they understand and see themselves.

Gal: This concept intrigued me when we started speaking, while your book was still in the making. I was working on a previous Aporia piece at the time (about the demise of the Israeli Left) and decided to take on your advice. I purposely chose a luminary whose narrative I completely disagree with - a guy on the extreme fringe of all that I reject. I listened to a long interview with him and came out wiser. I still think he adds up one plus one and gets five, but I was able to better see where his twisted outlook on life was coming from. I would recommend this as an exercise to anyone, perhaps even to school children. My guess is that the wiser politicians out there are fully versed in their opponent’s narrative, and that this knowledge grants them an advantage.

Farrell: This is wonderful to hear. In a way you did not allow his criticism of your way of thinking to stop you from listening to him. This has enabled you to better see him as he sees himself. You can still disagree with the other person, but at least there is real understanding of issues and where the other person is coming from.

Gal: How did you develop the “civil war to civil dialogue” solution?

Farrell: I realised that if it is biologically unnatural to hear criticism without becoming defensive, we need to circumvent that biologically unnatural propensity. I devised the techniques and exercises to enable this, realising that they will only be effective if people practiced. 

Gal: How did you know what was effective and what was not?

Farrell: I had follow up calls with couples who attended the couples communication workshop, several months later. We looked at what aspects of the program had a positive impact on the relationship and which did not. I soon realised that the wisdom gained by the couples on the California hills disappeared as soon as criticism reappeared, and that practice was crucial.

Gal: This directly relates to the boy crisis, as you highlighted, because better communication can prevent parents’ separation to begin with. But also, if parents do separate, taking your message to heart means they are more likely to at least communicate with each other and be civil in their conduct.

Farrell: This is directly related to the boy crisis. When couples are not able to hear each other's perspectives, they are walking on eggshells, especially if they have children. Divorce leads very frequently to a lack of father involvement, which is the single biggest cause of the boy crisis. The minimal hope would be that after they realise they’re not right for each other, they are able to hear what the children need in order for them to grow up most effectively. Parents’ are the most important role models they get for how to communicate themselves, which is one of the reasons why children of divorce are far more likely to divorce themselves. They only have a role model of poor communication that led to divorce, and they repeat the process. 

Gal: Your message can potentially reduce discord in the broader culture.

Farrell: It would help greatly if, when listening to people with a different ideology or political stand, we didn’t think of our response but heard them out first. Again, it is not always easy. There will be cases where the other side will not reciprocate or respond to your positivity. What I say in the book is that you can do this alone; you don't have to be dependent on the person giving back to you. The great majority of people are reachable but some are not. Still, even someone that’s not reachable is more likely to cooperate when they feel heard.

Hannah is a London based journalist and award winning documentarian. Her credits include Quillette, the Critic, the Spectator, UnHerd, the Guardian (Art & Design) Creative Review, The BBC, Channel4 and the Jerusalem Post.

---

Consider supporting Aporia with a paid subscription:

You can also follow us on Twitter.