We tend to think of conversation as speech, but obviously listening is also a crucial part of every conversation — in theory, anyway. In practice, however, things tend to unfold quite differently, especially when conversations escalate. Joining Host Marco Werman, journalist Emily Kasriel delves into her new book about what might change if more politicians, pundits and everyday people at least tried to listen more.
We tend to think of conversation as speech, but listening is just as important as talking. And in practice, listening can go by the wayside, especially when conversations start to heat up.
“Deep Listening, Transform Your Relationships with Family, Friends, and Foes” delves into what could change if more politicians, pundits and everyday people at least tried to listen more. Courtesy of Emily Kasriel
“In the public sphere, a lot of people feel their role is to convey a vision, explain the truth or to convince other people,” journalist Emily Kasriel told The World. “And indeed, in the private sphere, we feel we need to put the world to right. We need to explain to our kids, partners, neighbors, to a colleague, what needs to be done at this stage. Our ears aren’t open to listening.”
She said the problem of uncivil discourse is widespread, and that we need to be more open to hearing people out.
“If we’re able to take a step back, to act with curiosity, to let the whole of us listen to the whole of them, the person we’re listening to has a moment to unpack what’s going on for them, to share something far more authentic … so that at the end of it, they feel heard and we both feel far more connected. [It’s] especially important when we have different ideas from the person that we’re trying to listen to.”
The World’s Host Marco Werman spoke to Kasriel more about this approach.
Marco Werman: But does that work in the national, international and diplomatic spaces where there is so much at stake and people do come with those presumptions?
Emily Kasriel: I think there are two different situations. When you’re talking about something that is on public display, it is performative. People are feeling they need to get their point across. But, when you’re talking about an international context — conversations that are happening behind closed doors — it’s so important that leaders truly listen to each other. The research demonstrates that when people are truly heard, they dial down their attitude extremity, which means they lower the strength with which they hold their own attitude and become more open to considering other ideas. In fact, I did some research because, for the BBC’s 100th birthday, I worked with the British council and we recruited a thousand people in a hundred countries. This was a really diverse group of people. The countries most represented were Malaysia, the UK, New Zealand and Iran. We found that after people learned how to practice deep listening and then had a conversation about a very contentious subject — about which they deeply disagreed — they felt safer expressing themselves and genuinely understood. They felt more connected with their conversation partner — and this is crucial — they felt more open to reexamine their own attitudes.
As you considered this idea of deep listening, which has led up to this book, you witnessed it early on in South Africa when you were a young journalist. This is before you started actively researching all this. It was during an exchange between Nelson Mandela and opposition leaders. Please describe what happened.
When I had just arrived in South Africa to be the reporter for BBC Africa, I was in Johannesburg, and we heard that a story was unfolding in Pretoria. We all bundled into the BBC van and turned up because these were soldiers, uMkhonto we Sizwe soldiers, that were part of the ANC’s guerrilla army, who’d been integrated into the South African defense force, which, prior to the end of apartheid, was part of the apartheid-controlled regime. And these soldiers were angry. They were angry about the food [and] the way they’d been treated by their despised former enemies. They were angry that their rank was lower than it had been in uMkhonto we Sizwe. And so, they wanted to speak to their leader, and they turned up at the Union Buildings, the very heart of the South African establishment, to speak to Nelson Mandela. Eventually, he arrived by helicopter. I went to the erected podium to hear what he would have to say. But he wasn’t there. Instead, I found Nelson Mandela walking among the soldiers, very far from the podium. And he was trailed by his bodyguard, but he was walking and talking and greeting these angry soldiers.
Wow, right in the middle of them.
Absolutely! And he was trailed by his bodyguard, but he was walking, talking and greeting them. He said to one guy, “Hello, what’s your name?” And the guy responded. [Mandela continued,] “And tell me, where do you live? … Yes, I know Alexandra Township … but which street? Ah, the corner of that street. Oh yes, I get it. And now tell me why are you here?” And only after he spent a whole hour, at least, wandering among the crowd, did he get up on the podium. He told these soldiers, “I have heard from you; I understand your grievances, but now you must be disciplined. You must go back to your barracks, and you need to help us build the new South Africa.” And all the soldiers did what Mandela said.
Let me stop you right there. Extract from that example what deep listening is — what in that moment did you see Nelson Mandela practicing deep listening?
I think he had respect for the soldiers, for their humanity and their experiences, regardless of their beliefs. He conveyed this through this respect, through really being curious about their story, through seeing them as individuals rather than just a label, which [could be seen as] angry soldiers who were trying to challenge him. His curiosity also led to empathy, which was evident in the whole manner in which he conveyed to them. That also led to respect, and the soldiers felt it. They felt respected, they felt heard. And that’s why they were then able to listen to what Mandela had to say.
How optimistic are you that divided societies can come together if they stop to listen to the other side? I mean, again, as a former journalist, you’ve witnessed a lot of division and war in your career. Do you truly believe that simple listening can provide a way out of this polarization?
I don’t think that listening is the whole answer, but I think the fact that so many of us want to learn to listen better, and want to engage across divides, and when people do have these conversations, as happened when we did that very large-scale global experiment, it was optimistic. People felt excited. People said to me things like, “Thank you so much for giving me permission to listen.” Once they understood that listening does not necessarily signal agreement, then … all sorts of things become possible.
Parts of this interview have been edited for length and clarity.
Editor’s note: This Q&A has been updated on June 27, 2025 to reflect additional comments from Emily Kasriel.
The World is on YouTube! Check us out and subscribe.
