When it was time to give the gifts, everyone pulled their faces: Uncle Gégé had fun throwing out a political subject in the middle of the meal, raising the temperature by a few degrees. If this situation brings back bad memories of New Year’s Eve, 20 minutes has (maybe) the solution.
To avoid confusion over pension reform or immigration at Christmas, we offer you these five very useful sentences to draw out at the table to reduce tensions. With explanations from Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet, specialist in political communication.
1. “I understand your point of view…”
First technique to use, diplomacy. If during the aperitif, Uncle Gégé brings up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his justification for the bombing of civilians puts you out of control, it is still better to take a step towards him. “It is better to recognize from the outset that we understand the emotion of the other, that we welcome it, to have empathy,” warns Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet. “”I understand your reaction, that you were very shocked by the October 7 attacks in Israel, but for my part…” This eases tensions in advance, and you will then be able to develop your arguments more easily.
2. “We will both agree on…”
Another tactic to try is finding things in common with your interlocutor. “It is a technique used by Emmanuel Macron, particularly during of a debate facing François Ruffin in 2017. From the start, he recalls that they attended the same Jesuit high school in Amiens. It has no interest, but it allows us to create something common,” assures the professor of political communication at Sciences-Po and president of MCBG Conseil.
“This could be, for example, ‘we will agree that war is not the right solution’. Or, on immigration: ”we can agree that the way we are managing it is not the right way since we have been having the same debate for thirty years”. And then, everyone gives their opinion,” continues Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet. Returning to common points regularly during the exchange will help avoid an oyster fight.
3. “What do you suggest? »
During the exchange, this little sentence can also save you from some outbursts of anger. “You have to force the other to put themselves in your place. ”what is your solution?”. The idea is to pass the buck, force the other to propose concrete things. ”What would you do against insecurity? What would be your response to violence against women? », Lists the specialist. The objective: to confuse your opponent to show that there is no miracle answer, and that it is much easier to oppose than to propose. “It allows the other to integrate the constraints, it’s a bit of manipulation, but it opens the dialogue. It’s a technique widely used by Macronists when faced with opposition,” he adds.
4. “Where did you see that?” »
This one is not the easiest to set up, but it can be useful if the anti-vax uncle starts to spoil the meal. “You have to try to understand the other person’s point of view, even if it’s bullshit. “Where do you get your information?”, this avoids the knee-jerk response which leads to nothing,” says Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet.
Reminding your neighbor that grandpa and grandma might not be here this evening without the government’s vaccination policy is therefore not very useful. “Better to understand why he thinks the vaccine is dangerous. People often recite things they read on Facebook. From there, we can discuss: ”but are you sure of your source of information?” That at least opens one door.
5. “Are you having some more turkey?” »
Before any debate, it is important to set your limits in advance. “We must not accept a debate that leads to a shouting match or could ruin Christmas evening. And from a certain point, you have to know how to stop it, tolerate disagreements, because you can’t convince yourself about everything: ”listen, we won’t agree on Eric Zemmour, so let’s stop there” ‘”, says Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet. The statistics are clear: no Uncle Gégé has been convinced in the middle of a meal.
Bonus: “Have you read this report?” »
This is THE sentence that should definitely not be used. Unless you want to make your famous uncle come off his hinges. “Referring to precise data never works. We are not in a university debate, you will come across as someone contemptuous, it will upset your interlocutor, it’s the wrong idea,” warns the specialist.