2.1. From “moral strangers” to subjects capable of dialogue and social collaboration

The American philosopher Hugo Tristram Engelhardt Jr. introduced the expressions “moral friends” and “moral strangers”. Moral friends are those with whom we share moral contents with their rules of evidence and inference. Moral strangers are those with whom we do not share the ethical premises, and the conflict may be due to their incompatible way of reasoning or to the discrepancy in moral values (Cf. ¹). Our postmodern, globalized, and pluralistic society is composed not only of “moral friends” but also of “moral strangers”. How can we avoid a confrontation that leads to conflict and destruction, and how can we live in a society composed of “friends” and “moral strangers” without falling into a relativism that ceases to seek the common good?

In addition to plurality, the phenomenon of polarization is becoming evident in many environments, bringing negative consequences for man and life in society (Cf. ²). Some have explained the mechanism of affective polarization (Cf. ³) and its causes, where an important factor to consider is the polarized dialogue in the digital era, however, it has not been proven that social networks are the cause of polarization (Cf. ⁴). Some have suggested that polarized dialogue is not a consequence of but manifests itself in the digital context (Cf. ⁵). We argue that it is necessary not only to give the “moral outsider” the benefit of the doubt, but also to attempt to discern the truth in their moral vision as this disposition facilitates the communication necessary for the functioning of life in society (Cf. ⁶).

2.2. Using the lessons of intercultural dialogue

We will use Engelhardt’s expressions “moral friends” and “moral strangers” to make an analogy between dialogue between morally diverse groups and dialogue between people of different languages. Intercultural competence refers to the skills, attitudes and behaviors needed to enhance interactions across difference, whether within a society (differences in age, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, ethnicity, etc.) or across borders (Cf. ⁷).

To dialogue with someone from a different culture, a common language is necessary. First, it is necessary to learn the words, the vocabulary, the expressions of the other language. In this process we realize that there are identical or very similar words that are used with different meanings. There are concepts that have more nuances in one language than in another and some languages have terms that simply do not exist in others and make translation difficult, without this implying that the reality they mean does not exist in another culture.

Secondly, communication with a foreigner is not limited to verbal communication, gestures and body language are also important. They are not said, but which are inviting, pleasing, annoying or offensive, and which one must learn to differentiate. A further step after verbal and body language communication is when you get to know the tastes, traditions, and things that the other culture enjoys. This is also intercultural communication and helps to know and understand the values of the other culture.

Another step, not easily achieved in intercultural dialogue, is to understand the fears that are the source of the rejections expressed by the other culture.

An attitude of openness towards what is different is of utmost importance. To learn words, concepts, and behaviors, to know the history, reasons, values, tastes, and fears of the other, it is necessary to dialogue and share with the other.

The comparison of intercultural dialogue with dialogue between “moral strangers”, in this case intergenerational dialogue, shows an important truth: one does not cease to be who one is by knowing how to dialogue with those who are different. Dialogue does not imply forgetting or renouncing one’s own, or even changing tastes. Learning a new language does not mean forgetting one’s mother tongue; it means learning new ways of communicating and even enriching one’s own concepts. In fact, it is possible to become friends with a “moral stranger”.

2.3. Safe space for dialogue to move from concepts to the values at stake

This type of dialogue requires more than confronting ideas. It involves not only seeking mutual understanding at the level of ideas, but also of values. Our pluralistic society, which is at the same time so threatened by polarization, needs this kind of dialogue to reduce prejudices between groups (Cf. ⁸,⁹).

It is crucial to get to the question of why does the “moral outsider” care about a certain issue, a certain statement? When he feels he has the safe space to speak, he will share this why, revealing the values behind his stance. Values are perceived goods that one wants to achieve and fears losing. Therefore, there is a tendency to orient actions towards them, and to protect them with decisions. If the dialogue remains only in confrontations and defenses of one’s own ideas, one does not get to know the values at stake. Little or nothing constructive comes out of these “dialogues”.

4.1. Initial survey

The first activity consisted of all participants filling out an anonymous module. This survey sought to specify how they saw themselves and the other generation in relation to gender. The module was answered by 76 people. Table 2 shows some of the answers to the questions. The selection criterion was to choose the twenty answers that were most repeated in terms of the concept.¹ The original formulation of the answers was respected.

The answers to this first question go in two directions: some point more to the question of gender itself, and how it is understood: whether there are two or more genders, the role of roles and sexuality, and whether there is a natural law. Most stress the difference in attitudes of the two generations: whether they are open to change, tolerance, or labels.

Table 3 presents the answers to the second question where the distrust of both generations about the possible openness of the other and their readiness to engage in a real dialogue clearly emerges. Almost all the answers confirm the difficulty of expressing themselves and dialoguing frankly and point to the other generation as the one responsible for the closed-mindedness. They are “light years apart”, and this may lead to the fact that they have never expressed their ideas freely.

The third question confirms this mutual distrust, as shown in Table 4. The two generations feel that they discredit each other and consider that this prejudice makes true understanding very difficult. It is interesting to highlight the suffering that this entails and that can be perceived in some answers.

As shown in Table 5, the consequences of distrust emerge: both generations are convinced that, if decisions depended on the other, things would “objectively” go wrong. Both point out that there would be injustices and harm to people.

Table 6 shows the judgment of the two generations towards each other. Only three responses suggest adjectives with a nuance that could be considered positive: “free, diverse, inclusive”, and later “sensitive, empathetic”. The third response that would enter here is “right ideas”, although it is associated with “closed”.

This last question and the one that follows, represented in Table 7 and 8, highlight the frustration of all, adults, and young people, in the face of the other generation. In the answers we can guess the values that each generation defends, and again the suffering for considering that the other is not open to understanding and dialogue.

A summary of the first survey has been presented to highlight the starting point of the second workshop: the mutual distrust between the two generations and disbelief about the need for or the possibility of a real dialogue.

4.2. Brainstorming and selection of conditions and commitments for the dialogue

After this first exercise, teams were formed by generations: five teams of young people and five teams of adults. They were asked to specify four things:

Table 9 lists the teams’ contributions. In the presentation of the results, no distinction is made between the contributions from the youth and adult teams, although as in the anonymous module, in some cases it is easy to deduce their origin.

It should be noted that what everyone asked for most often was openness (five times), followed by empathy (three times). As for what they were willing to contribute, the most frequent response was “new perspectives” (four times), followed by respect and empathy (two times each). As for possible blocks, prejudices (five times), lack of listening (four times) or lack of patience (three times) were mentioned. Finally, the advantages that were envisaged were along the lines of understanding, encounter, and the possibility of building together.

4.3. Guiding questions: concepts and definitions

Once the commitment that each one was willing to assume to make the dialogue possible had been defined, the actual work began. There were ten mixed teams: adults and young people together. The dynamics consisted of group work, followed by a plenary session and a conference. The guiding questions for the first work were the following:

In this first exercise, they were not asked to reach any kind of consensus. Each member of the group had to express his or her answer to the question freely, and all the answers were recorded in the minutes without corrections or comments. In the plenary session, each team presented the results of their work. The diversity of opinions on these questions was remarkable. Some pointed out very precisely who had invented the term and when (most referred to John Money in the late 1960s), while others said that it had always existed. As far as the Church’s opinion of gender was concerned, most of the responses emphasized the negative judgment: that it did not agree, that it considered it dangerous, an ideology, and so on. The heterogeneity of the responses was particularly notable in the feelings aroused by the word gender: from fear to confidence, freedom or dictatorship, relief, or fear.

To illuminate these answers, the genesis of the term was presented in a lecture: how did it enter the realm of psychology, feminism and politics, the initial reaction of the Church and its evolution? The lecture was not intended to give definitive answers but to illuminate the question from a broader perspective and to provide a framework to help understand some of the reasons for the polarizations. It helped to understand that part of the confusion stemmed from the failure to distinguish between the levels at which dialogue is usually approached, mixing the existential realm (the lives of concrete persons), the anthropological realm (what gender is) and the political realm. Visualizing the genesis of equivocation in each area helped everyone have a clearer picture.

4.4. Guide Table 1: convergences and divergences

In the second teamwork,² the guiding questions were the following:

Teams had to collect their answers and organize them into:

The added element in this exercise was the need to identify the points of agreement in the different positions and the aspects to be illuminated. This required not only the aseptic collection of the opinions of each member of the group, but a greater understanding of the different ideas, their convergences, and divergences. Table 10 below serves as a guideline for collecting the results of this exercise:

Again, in the plenary session, the result of the work of all the teams was presented, followed by a conference that sought to shed light on the points made by them. The definition of sex did not present difficulties, while the answer to the other two questions was not so clear. On the relationship between sex and gender, some said they were the same, others said they were independent realities, and others said they did not know. On the question of being male or female, some said it was natural, others said it was cultural, and still others said both. After this exposition of the groups, different gender theories were presented and some of the advantages and weaknesses of their way of conceiving the relationship between sex and gender were made evident. The aim of the theoretical presentation was to provide elements that would help in a more complete understanding of the issue, showing the inadequacy of approaches that reduced its complexity by absolutizing a single element. It became clear that it was not necessary to speak of “the” theory or “the” gender ideology, and that it is rather necessary to consider the heterogeneity of theories and the impossibility of referring to them as if they were a monolithic block.

4.5. Guide box 2: review and more precise conceptualization of convergences and divergences

The next team exercise consisted of going back to the table already completed in the previous work and revising or clarifying some points, because of the exchange in the plenary session and the theoretical conference. Almost all the teams reformulated some of their ideas and pointed out more precisely the points of convergence or points to be clarified. In particular, it became clearer to all that being male, and female was both natural and cultural at the same time. There was also a greater convergence, which showed that everyone was changing their position or conceptualizing it more clearly.

A final lecture developed the role of the different ingredients that come into play in identity: body, psyche, culture, freedom. In this way, it was shown which elements were privileged by each gender theory, proposing keys from which to discern the greater or lesser validity of the different positions. As has been pointed out, the aim was not to provide a definitive solution to the questions surrounding the gender issue, but simply to broaden the view on the subject. The participants confirmed that the conferences had helped them to review their own ideas and to change their position in some respects.

4.6. Balance of the dialogue

At the end of each team dialogue exercise, participants were asked to take a few minutes to take stock of how the dialogue itself had worked, using the following questions:

They were invited to have a moment of personal reflection, followed by a few minutes of brief sharing, if they wished. This helped everyone to keep in mind not only the evolution in understanding of the ideas they were facing, but also the dialogue exercise itself: its conditions, blocks and demands.

In a final work by teams, they were asked to express what they had learned from the dialogue. Table 11 shows a synthesis of the contributions of the different teams in relation to the three guiding questions they were asked:

As a final activity, participants were asked to summarize in one word how they would summarize their own experience and share it in plenary session. The most repeated words were joy, encounter, hope, “yes we can”, bridge, conversion, empathy, dialogue, surprise, new path. The joy of all was the most characteristic note of this concluding moment, which expressed everyone’s satisfaction with the exercise carried out.

Up to this point, the description of the two workshops. In the following section we will share some conclusions from this experience.