John Inazu, Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect (affiliate link). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books, 2024. 198 pages.
I should first disclose that the publisher sent me this book to review. I was interested in reading it because it addresses a topic that has become increasingly important in our severely polarized society: learning to show empathy and respect for people with whom we disagree.
John Inazu is a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. He draws on his teaching experience to help readers understand the nuances and complexities of many of today’s polarizing issues. He is also a self-professed Christian. I didn’t agree with all of Inazu’s opinions, but I found his discussion interesting, modest, and—at times—thought-provoking. His writing style is easy to follow, and his candid confessions make him likeable, even if I sometimes disagree with him.
I should also say that the subject matter is huge, and this book is not exhaustive. Nonetheless, Inazu does a good job of addressing some key issues in an interesting, inoffensive manner.
Inazu claims that he wrote this book to find “. . . nuance and empathy in some of our country’s most divisive issues” (xi). He cautions that “Social media also makes it harder to empathize with others” (3). In an age dominated by social media, it is easy to misunderstand and condemn people with whom we disagree. Conversely, Inazu notes that “Lega education is not flashy. It involves exhaustive research, precise writing, and attention to language—not witty one-liners and clever retorts” (3). Practitioners of law must carefully consider how they use language. They have to understand their opponents in order to counter their arguments effectively. They must also be cognizant of nuance and avoid overstating their case. Inazu argues that following those guidelines could help everyone be more civil toward one another.
Inazu states, “Teaching law means teaching clarity and precision, and parts of that are boring. But teaching law also means teaching empathy. And that’s why I find the professor’s social media rants so jarring. They model empathy for allies and hatred for adversaries. Good lawyering requires empathy for adversaries. You don’t have to like the other side, but you do have to understand them” (4). Inazu emphasizes empathy. He argues that social media has made empathy much more difficult to practice.
Inazu suggests, “. . . we might pause to imagine the distance that divides our experiences” (10). He adds, “Sometimes a drop of empathy can restrain a flood of needless words and thoughtless commentary . . . Empathy is not rocket science . . . It’s giving people the benefit of the doubt because you may not know what battles they are fighting” (10).
Inazu describes a number of legal cases his students discuss that are anything but black and white. In teaching his students, he suggests that “. . . the right approach lies at the intersection of civic responsibility and civic grace: don’t be afraid to express your honest opinions but treat others kindly” (13).
Inazu demonstrates—using examples from various court cases—how right and wrong can be blurred. He states, “Sometimes questions of what should happen—questions of fairness—lack clear answers” (26). Inazu uses the illustration of heated debates on school campuses. He observes, “Because our school lacks a clear concept of ‘justice,’ we won’t be able to say whether or how free speech serves justice. But we can set up rules of engagement that everyone has to follow—we can require procedural fairness” (34). He muses, “when you think about it, not all questions of fairness are unanswerable” (37). He continues, “Just because we won’t ever make the world perfectly just and fair doesn’t mean we can’t strive to make it fairer and more just” (37).
Inazu provides several examples of when people’s rights clash, yet both sides appear to be just. One example is when the right to recline an airplane seat conflicts with another passenger’s right to legroom. He concludes that “. . . Our lives are full of clashing values and priorities not readily prone to compromise” (46). He claims that “A world with law—the world we all prefer—means a world of winners and losers in politics, policies, and legal disputes” (49). He concludes, “Trying to upend the system usually ends in futility, frustration, or chaos” (49).
Inazu points out that even families and friends are becoming bitterly divided over current issues. He notes that “Many of us will encounter friends and relatives over the holidays who hold differing and increasingly emotionally charged beliefs about issues like immigration, mass incarceration, vaccine mandates, and affirmative action. There’s a long list, and it’s getting longer” (56).
Throughout the book, Inazu confesses various personal struggles, including going to court for a traffic fine and occasionally disagreeing with his wife. He opines, “It turns out that critically analyzing the premise of every claim is not always the best strategy in an argument with your spouse” (77). He also stresses that “Everyone you meet is far more than whatever impression you have formed in your brief encounter with them” (78).
Inazu’s opinions don’t always match my own, but his purpose is to demonstrate that people on both sides of an issue may have valid and sincerely held concerns. He states, “The challenge for each of us is to leave room for others to render the respect or dissent they deem appropriate without insisting that our loyalties become theirs” (93).
Inazu points out that not all laws appear just to everyone. He states, “Few of us want to live in a world determined more by the arguments we detest than the arguments we embrace” (110). He discusses some of the Supreme Court’s well-known legal decisions, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling and the Respect for Marriage Act (110). He states that “Recognizing a lack of neutrality does not mean embracing a lack of nuance” (110). He admits that “In a country as large and diverse as the United States, every one of us holds beliefs and opinions that other people think are beyond the pale” (126). He notes that “My students often have strong opinions coming into class, and part of my job as a teacher is to get them to see that well-intentioned people can have differing beliefs without being evil” (123).
Inazu offers various suggestions on how to show civility and even respect toward those with whom we disagree. He suggests, “One practical way to embrace this presumption is to look for something good about people you find most wrong . . . and if you can’t come up with anything, ask yourself if it’s because they need to change or because you need to change” (127).
Inazu concludes by referencing his annual summer beach vacation, a time when he sees a wide variety of people enjoying life together despite having extremely diverse views on many issues. He concludes, “But real life for most people isn’t the beach. It’s instead full of nuance and complexity, of conflict and disagreement, of the local mixing with the global and everything in between. It’s a world of hard questions without easy answers. But as my time at the beach has reminded me, it’s also a world where a little bit of familiarity—and a little bit of empathy—can still go a long way” (162).
Those statements summarize much of this book. Trying to understand and develop empathy for others goes a long way toward building bridges of civility and respect.
This book was an easy read. The author delves into some crucial issues. His students are typically young and conversant with the latest trends and viewpoints. He attempts to employ facts and objectivity. At times, he judges issues—such as a Supreme Court decision—on legal rather than moral grounds. While he professes to adopt a Christian perspective, not all Christians will agree with his conclusions.
I found the structure of the book both helpful and somewhat disappointing. He uses the framework of a semester of his class, but his approach tends to be more anecdotal than systematic. Nevertheless, he provides plenty of insights and observations that may challenge certain presuppositions and encourage readers to think.
Rating: 3
