Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect

by John D. Inazu

Are you discouraged by our divided, angry culture, where even listening to a different perspective sometimes feels impossible? If so, you're not alone, and it doesn't have to be this way. Learning to Disagree reveals the surprising path to learning how to disagree in ways that build new bridges with our neighbors, coworkers, and loved ones--and help us find better ways to live joyfully in a complex society. In a tense cultural climate, is it possible to disagree productively and respectfully without compromising our convictions? Spanning a range of challenging issues--including critical race theory, sexual assault, campus protests, and clashes over religious freedom--highly regarded thought leader and law professor John Inazu helps us engage honestly and empathetically with people whose viewpoints we find strange, wrong, or even dangerous. As a constitutional scholar, legal expert, and former litigator, John has spent his career learning how to disagree well with other people. In Learning to Disagree , John shares memorable stories and draws on the practices that legal training imparts--seeing the complexity in every issue and inhabiting the mindset of an opposing point of view--to help us handle daily encounters and lifelong relationships with those who see life very differently than we do. This groundbreaking, poignant, and highly practical book equips us If you are feeling exhausted from the tattered state of dialogue in your social media feed, around the country, and in daily conversations, you're not alone. Discover a more connected life while still maintaining the strength of your convictions through this unique, often-humorous, thought-provoking, and ultimately life-changing exploration of the best way to disagree.

Genres: Nonfiction, Self Help, Audiobook, Christian Living, Psychology, Personal Development, Faith

224 pages, Hardcover

Published April 2, 2024

About the author

John Inazu is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis.

His weekly Substack, Some Assembly Required, can be found at https://johninazu.substack.com

Reviews

[Max D'onofrio · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't dislike this book, but I didn't get much out of it. I think the title is misrepresenting what the book seems to explore, which is more about making space for others and the idea that you might not be right about everything. Or at least you should be open to that idea. I completely agree with that, but it isn't something I felt like I needed a book to remind me about. It had some interesting stories and personal anecdotes, but it just didn't lead to all that much new ideas. I can sees others those really getting a lot from this book.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to classify this book—part memoir, part instructional—but I think that's what makes this book work and stand out. One of the challenges of contemporary society is that the muscle of disagreeing is mostly exercised in a negative way. But in a pluralist society, disagreement is not only inevitable, but necessary, so finding ways that we can navigate differences—particularly when those differences lead to disagreements about what is good or right—is essential to a healthy pluralist culture.

Inazu uses the venue of a law school as his platform for demonstrating various experiences of disagreement, and it's a useful platform for doing so. But it's also much more broadly applicable, and one need not be a lawyer—or even familiar with law—to see how a bringing a liberal colleague to play golf with your conservative church friend (to take one example from the book) can prove a challenging ground for navigating difference.

[Lauren Relyea · Rating 4 out of 5]

It excites me that I’m one of the first (approx) 135ish people to have read and reviewed this book on Goodreads. I was looking for a fourth book to rent from my local library, and this stuck out to me on the new releases shelf. If you know me, I love a good back and forth and I was looking forward to someone else’s perspective on disagreeing (and how to navigate with empathy and respect; gotta include part of the title).

I went into the book hoping for new ideas and concepts, but being empathic and respectful seems to be (in my opinion) well known and effective ways to effectively disagree with others. But I appreciate that this book is written from John’s perspective as a scholar, an educator, a legal expert, as well as former litigator. I appreciate his experience and expertise on heavy hitters, but some thoughts seem to be personal and maybe obvious stances (though that can be suspected in non-fiction written in the first person POV).

I appreciate his honesty with himself and to his audience and like that this book is written as “neutral” as one can be when writing in the first person. He often has the reader looking within themselves and their moral compass as to how the reader would react in certain situations, while pointing out that grace and empathy should be involved on both sides of issues (big or small).

I would read this again, maybe with someone else and go through the questions in the Reflection Guide at the end of the book. I have a hunch that the reflection questions may add to the overall experience of reading this book— has he made us pseudo law students by opening up ourselves to hard conversations?

My favorite quote from this book: "The more we insist our missteps are justified while demanding that others repent before we can forgive, the more we will harden ourselves, our neighbors, and ultimately our society."

Will definitely recommend to others.

[Melissa Balkon · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I wouldn’t say this book was bad, I would say it was completely different than I thought it would be; with a title and subhead “Learning to disagree: The surprising path to navigating difference with empathy and respect” I thought this book would provide techniques and strategies to navigate disagreements or conversations with people whose beliefs are different from my own. However, that is not at all what this book is; the book ends up being more of a memoir or rambling observance of the conflicts he encounters throughout his career teaching law. It isn’t a *bad* book—just 100% different than I thought it would be and I wanted to share tgus info so other readers would know. Side note: I listened to the book on audio, and I found the reader’s voice to be very easy to listen to.

[Annabelle Schweiger · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my goals for 2024 was to expand my horizons and read more nonfiction, and this did not disappoint!

The author continuously touches on how to reframe your thinking in order to become more empathetic, respectful and understanding so that we do not automatically assume people are ignorant or ’evil’ because they don’t agree with us on something. We often hold beliefs so strongly that it becomes difficult to see (or want to see) a different perspective, and this provides strategies to be more open minded.

I would recommend this book to anyone! I had lots of great reflection on my own thought processes and how I can grow and do better moving forward.

[Mrs. Chow · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short read. Worth the time. Interesting to get the perspective of a law professor.

[Claire Haeg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really as advertised. This was long on "be nice to people and just get along" and pretty short on solutions to real public policy problems. So, great. Let’s have empathy. I have no problem with that. But I expected to get some help with mediating disputes in public life. How can we disagree with people who are truly misinformed on matters of factual reality? How do we disagree better with parents who refuse to vaccinate their children for polio, measles, mumps, and other infectious diseases? How do we convince them that the vaccine they fear is safe and effective? How do we make effective public policy to solve the climate crisis if some people are arguing that climate change doesn't exist? This book does not address real world problems. Its proposed solution seems to be that we go golfing, get a hole in one, and celebrate as friends. That’s not disagreeing better; that’s just pretending the disagreement doesn’t exist.

[Amy Simpson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Along the same lines of Haidt’s “Righteous Mind” or Alan Jacobs “How to Think” with an interesting format, as the author takes you through a year of law school month-by-month, highlighting the transferable skills in building critical thinking. This provided an interesting behind-the-scenes look of a law professor.

Like others have noted, I’m not sure if this book is titled correctly. I found it less about disagreement and more about intellectual honesty.

Read this because of author’s association to Tim Keller (even though the book isn’t necessarily faith-based), otherwise I may not have given it a glance. I liked it, wasn’t the most challenging thing I’ve read on the topic but it WAS very accessible. However, the audiobook was rough to get through. I persevered, but I recommend the physical copy.

[Catherine Bishop · Rating 2 out of 5]

A worthwhile aim ruined by AI-like, boring writing. I understand the desire to make this concept accessible, but the fourth grade vocabulary level was grating.

I will say, the guidebook on « how to disagree » in the back is very cool and worth the cost of the book itself. Definitely topical going into this election season. But the meat of this book is deathly dull.

[R M · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly interesting stories as a law professor. Entertaining and a short read... But not what one might hope for in "learning [how] to disagree." Positive elements are stories told in a 'show, don't tell' manner, yet still hard to find the aspects of learning to disagree.

[Alice Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

I see this reflected in some other reviews—I don’t think this book is what I thought it would be from the title and description. It’s much more memoir than expected. That might just be on me, based on my headspace with the timing of the writing and topicality of the subject, but it seems like others had the same reaction. That said, I did very much enjoy this book overall. I appreciate the lessons of slowing down our rush to judgment, listening to each other, critiquing the ideas and not the person. Believing that others can grow and change, as we can as well. I appreciate the author’s vulnerability in identifying his own rush to judgment in certain circumstances (eg with a student who approached him about an independent study). I like his emphasis on how strident shaming and call outs are not persuasive or productive, and that persuasion is often more valuable even if it doesn’t feel as good in the moment (haha). I think Prof. Inazu’s is an underrepresented voice—he is a veteran first, and then a professor who is also mixed race (Japanese and white)—so his contributions and perspective from that standpoint are important.

On his use of the law school classroom and legal reasoning to center the discussion - I’m an attorney who is pretty disillusioned about our criminal justice system after four years as a public defender (and some death penalty sentencing work). The courtrooms I observed and practiced in largely resemble the kangaroo traffic court the author describes—even the ones that look like our Law & Order image of a courthouse. I’ve gone full circle from legal realist to someone who “thinks like a lawyer” to someone who hates to admit the sovereign citizens sometimes make sense (just kidding, but I’m definitely a legal realist again—I don’t believe judges make decisions based on the law. I think that usually requires an intellectual honesty and courage that many of them lack.) So, I had to suspend my disbelief a bit to go back to the intellectual exercise of a law school classroom. I do believe the philosophical back and forth of a law school classroom is a good example to use for this book’s discussion and objects—it is a rare place where people are forced to think about things both in depth and with nuance, and also where they are forced to advocate for positions contrary to their own personal beliefs at times. I agree that the lessons could be transferred to more ordinary settings. That said, I’m not sure how engaging the examples would be to a non-lawyer. But I’ve already enthusiastically recommended the book to several practicing lawyers and law professor friends, and I think it’s a valuable contribution to what will be an ever more important discussion as our country careens toward a level of polarization we haven’t seen in years. Thank you for Professor Inazu for your work on this subject, and for sharing your own stories.

[Sage Showers · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very enjoyable read. Inazu makes his points by telling stories about normal life, and I would recommend to anyone seeking help with strong disagreements and fraying relationships. To me, it felt like constructive self-reflection. In this age, we could all use Inazu’s simple life wisdom in order to navigate these tense and hate-filled times.

[Nicholas Pokorny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not exactly a How-to guide on learning to disagree (hey! I used the title!).

It's more about trying to understand your opposite's POV in order to foster better conversations. Inazu's experience as a lawyer informs how he approaches this subject in a deeply polarized world.

[Emily Walters · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book incredibly thought provoking. It was the first book I’ve read in quite awhile that I read almost straight through once I started.
The author is obviously well studied and challenged my viewpoints in several areas through an interesting story format.

If you enjoy politics or law I recommend this book read with an open mind.

[Emma Lischka · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think 3.5 stars is more accurate. I enjoyed the book a lot and it was a quick read, but I didn't leave with anything insanely profound. Good reminder though and made me excited to go to law school.

[Nick Emond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inazu does a great job at keeping the book very conversational, while getting his point across. Enjoyed the personal anecdotes he included as he showed he wrestled with some of the ideas he brought up in the book. It’s ok to disagree, but how we go about disagreeing is the catch.

[Valerie Brandt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent book written about a very important topic. The majority of the book reminds us to see the good in others ESPECIALLY when we don’t agree. And the chapter on forgiveness and people nowadays not wanting to even consider it was disheartening. I can see my own blaring inadequacies as well. The final chapter sums up the ideas beautifully.

[Mark VanderWerf · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Perhaps it is better to start with the presumption that most people can be wrong - even deeply wrong - without being evil” (131).

Lots of interesting courts cases and case studies - some might make it into my teaching.

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was more a professor musings about what it's like teaching at a law school. There weren't any real tips on how to navigate contentious disagreements. I was expecting a little more than be polite, try to see the other side's viewpoint, don't discuss religion or politics at Thanksgiving, and go play golf with people with different viewpoints. Meh

[Mike Buckler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an exceptional book. Finding a via media in today's climate can feel impossible. Inazu articulates values, principles, and key practices for respectful disagreement that can draw people together rather than separate them.

[Lance · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was interesting to get an insight into what it's like to attend (or teach) law school, but the overall points about being nice and being friends seemed shallow to me.

On the other hand, it was also fun for me to walk on the WashU campus and see the Whisper Cafe after he lightly mocked it.

[Hong · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the perspective that 1) differences in beliefs on fairness/reasonable actions can come from own experiences, 2) to persuade, you must seek to understand fully where someone else is coming from and why, and 3) people can be wrong and not evil. The book consisted of more reflections than I had anticipated. I was hoping for some practical tips to try, however, the book did a good job of providing some reflection questions to start this process.

[Jonathan Shaheen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I heard the author speak at our church before I read the book which may be biasing my review, but I love this book. Rather than proscribing certain approaches or beliefs, he simply walks us through various stories in a year of his life while sharing his reflections. Through showing and not telling, he imparts so many valuable lessons in such a short book. Highly recommend (especially if you live in the U.S.).

[Erin Beasley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had the privilege of reviewing this book for the Englewood Review of Books. Take a look!

https://englewoodreview.org/john-inaz...

[Chris Perrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

The majority of the book is stories about being a law professor with very little actually helpful material for working through disagreements. Not at all what I expected based on the book’s own description. But perhaps you disagree!

[Mark Caleb Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Inazu's Learning to Disagree is really several books in one. First, it is a "welcome to law school" book. Second, it is an extended argument on how we might be able to live in a polarized society. Third, it is part autobiography.

As you consider all of those threads, I think the assumption would be that is too much to accomplish in one slim volume. Inazu manages it with aplomb. The book is structured around the typical academic year for law school, with chapters dedicated to each month. While the calendar provides the spine of the work, the bulk is made up of stories drawn from Inazu's years of teaching. The characters are mostly composites, but you read of students (gunners and strugglers), colleagues, people in his church, and his family. Since Inazu himself is really the main character, the book is devoted to how he navigates these relationships.

His life, devoted primarily to teaching and writing about law and religion, is complicated and lends itself to hard questions and conversations. He daily explores the difference between evil and wrong, the values that undergird court decisions and those affected by them, and the difficulty of being gracious to people where they are--even if you think they are sorely mistaken.

What makes Inazu's book compelling is the basic assumption that will challenge many narratives: America is big and divided. We can either understand and influence that reality or seek to destroy, demonize, or ignore those on the "other side." There is nothing too deep or penetrating in the book. It is simple, but that is its strength.

Finally, I will recommend this book to everyone interested in law school, and, maybe, everyone in general.

[Jasmine Gh · Rating 2 out of 5]

این کتاب برای من این مدلی بودش که آخیش بالاخره تموم شد یعنی خیلی برام کند پیش رفت و خیلی به نظر من گزافه گویی زیاد داشت
کلاً به نظرم کتاب‌های توسعه فردی این مشکل رو دارند که به جای اینکه به مثلا موضوعی که می‌خوام بپردازن اینقدر داستان تعریف می‌کنن که اصلاً اون موضوع که میخوان ازش نتیجه بگیرن گم میشه
و دقیقا ایراد دومی هم که می‌خوام بگیرم همینه کی گفته که تجربیات شخصی ما باید معیار باشه برای رفتاری که یک جمع انجام میده من توی یه موقعیتی یه رفتاری کردم یه نتیجه‌ای می‌گیرم حالا چه درست چه غلط کی گفته من حق دارم اینو کتاب بکنم و بگم شما هم تو این موقعیت قرار گرفتید این کارو بکنید
بعد اینکه واقعاً مثلاً ما چه این همه اطلاعاتی که داد یک ماه دیگه شاید هیچ کدوممون یادمون نباشه داستانایی که توی این کتاب تعریف کرده و به نظرم خیلی غیر ضروری بود خیلی از داستانایی که تعریف می‌کرد
و آخرین ضعفی هم که این کتاب به نظرم داشت اینه که مثلاً وقتی به همدلی پرداخته فقط گفته که همدلی کنین اصلاً به ما یاد نداد که چه جوری همدلی کنیم چه جوری اصلا همونطور که اسم کتابم بود ما مخالفت بکنیم بدون اینکه حالا مثلاً دشمن بشیم با طرف یا دلخوری پیش بیاد می‌دونید به نظرم شاید به خاطر اینکه نویسنده کتاب فرد مذهبیه عادت کرده مثل کتاب مقدس که میگه تو انسان این کار را بکن این کار را نکن اینم اینطوری کتاب نوشته یعنی اینکه فقط گفته این کارو بکنید تو این شرایط اینطوری رفتار کنید ولی اصلا نیومده بگه چه‌جوری مثلاً وقتی که خب یه فصلی داشتش که اختلافات خیلی شدید بود دیگه بعد میگفت خوب خیلی وقتا مثلاً این اختلاف زیاده نمیشه همدل کرد خب الان چیکار کنیم و هیچ توضیحی نداده
مثل کتاب مقدس فقط گفته این کارو انجام بدید یا ندید

[Phia Maynard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this with friends who you believe may be likeminded to you, and see what differences in opinion you develop on what Inazu writes. I think this was a nice light read into a subject that sprawls from how to handle interpersonal relationships to how to interpret law and case text. It's a great entry to legal philosophy, and by that, I mean just thinking about law, courts, politics, and society. I felt at times some subjects were not developed fully or had a deep enough of a dive, but I think Inazu's writings on empathy as throughline in this book are pretty transformative to how I approach people now. It really cant be used as a surefire guideline or template to how we handle complex and consequential political differences, and sometimes his widespread empathy approach to arguments about politics seem a bit outdated now, but I think there are some non-centrist or even radical approaches to understanding yourself, your politics, and your fellow man in this book. I also appreciated the setup of the chapters as months out of the academic calendar, and the use of Inazu's personal relationships as examples of each of the topics discussed in the book. A pretty satisfying read in its style and length, yet also a lightly unsatisfying read in some of its tackles to really hard problems.

[Andrew Silagi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It’s a world of hard questions without easy answers” (166). This refreshing book on dealing with the ubiquity of disagreement in our age will, I pray, help many intensely divided people find a way to engage with each other more humbly and thoughtfully. I appreciated Inazu’s law professor background in handling these challenging questions; his acknowledgment of the law’s messiness and inability to compromise in many situations provides a backdrop to think about interacting with friends or coworkers more charitably. I also loved Inazu's exhortation to be more thoughtful in speech even with those whom one could be more candid and bolder with those around whom one regularly guards oneself.

I would have loved if Inazu broke down the difference between “wrong” and “evil” a bit more. If someone leads someone astray unknowingly and with good intentions, is that simply wrong, or is it evil? Is, as the old adage says, the road to hell paved with good intentions? A question like this gets at the heart of the Gospel and human nature; I supposed I’ll have to think about it more. I’m grateful for how this book made me think about interacting with others and embracing relationships differently especially in a world where friendships are lost even over different responses to an election.

[Matt C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inazu encourages confrontation with the murkiness of relationships. Remind yourself of the complexity of the people you come across; everyone is handling a lot more than what you see. Well-intentioned people can have differing beliefs without being evil. Look for something good about the people you find most wrong. Instead of leaving your relationships in an awkward state of limbo during times of disagreement, take advantage of your proximity and familiarity to learn more rather than assume the worst. Be as charitable as possible, ask good follow-up questions, and try not to get offended too easily. You can have difficult conversations with most people most of the time, but you need to pay attention to context!

Our lives are full of clashing values and priorities that are not readily prone to compromise. We need to remind ourselves that our normative beliefs are not neutral views that everyone assumes to be true. When disagreeing with someone, make sure to recognize the biases and judgments implicit in your own views and be willing to address counter arguments with charity and clarity. The right response in any discussion lies at the “intersection between civic responsibility and civic grace.”