Active consideration of conflicting perspectives determines the extent of political success

Tolerance has been widely accepted as a desirable outcome of negotiating disagreement; it has also underscored implications for a normative understanding of democracy. Specifically, tolerating opposing views is part of valuing every political argument equally; a central tenet of democratic decision-making. However, tolerance also implies a negative attitude toward coexistence instead of the active consideration of conflicting perspectives (Sullivan, Pierson, & Marcus, 1982). On this point, I propose to consider perspective taking as a behavioral intent that reflects attitudes toward political adversaries, given that it more precisely captures the expectations of democratic interaction between disagreeing actors. It implies both a cognitive process that leads to understanding others and a disposition toward actively acknowledging disagreement. Perspective taking has been studied as the product of deliberative experiences in which exposure to disagreement occurs in face-to-face interactions (Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin et al., 2004; Nagda, 2006, Nagda & Zuniga, 2003) and in contexts in which political talk is motivated by exposure to political content. Perspective is taking akin to deliberative principles, such as the expected conscious effort of political adversaries to consider the various arguments on all sides of a public issue in a fair, egalitarian, and open manner (Gastil, 2000; Habermas, 1989; Rawls, 1996). According to Flavell (1975), perspective taking may also promote the desired outcomes of deliberative experiences, for it develops as individuals become more attentive and move from purely egocentric viewpoints to understanding the views of others (as cited in Thompson, 2007). It also implies the development of cognitive constructs that affect a person’s understanding that seeing another’s viewpoint is necessary for sustaining social interaction (Hale & Delia, 1976). Considering perspective taking to be a potential outcome of exposure to political disagreement highlights the importance of intermediaries in providing access and sense-making cues that enlarge the capacity to organize complex information with situational elements and contradictory content. The role of social movement organizations in structuring issue networks is crucial to determining the degree of exposure to disagreement and is thus expected to be related to the demonstrators’ disposition to take the perspectives of their political adversaries. In this sense, questioning the extent to which exposure to political disagreement in protest mobilization is related to perspective taking will provide evidence regarding the potential effects of political disagreement in contexts of salient controversy and active engagement.