Podcasts have been around for more than two decades, but the last few years – and particularly their influence in the 2024 US election – have solidified their role in the media landscape.
Some of the most popular podcasts in the US and UK (such as The Joe Rogan Experience and The Rest is Politics) have a conversational format. They typically include two or more people discussing topics in an unstructured, uncensored way. The hosts and guests are unencumbered by word counts or TV timeslots. Such podcasts are a viable medium for political persuasion.
There is some debate as to whether podcasts are simply an extension of the echo chambers formed in other media. But as a researcher of intellectual history and political discourse, I believe that conversational podcasts offer a uniquely valuable way to unpick political questions – and change the listener’s point of view.
To understand the value of conversation as a means of communication, I suggest looking to writing from 18th-century Britain. This period saw a shift away from monarchy towards parliamentary government, along with the explosion of print culture. Popular engagement with political issues grew, and discussion of politics became a notable pastime.
The rapidly expanding public sphere produced countless works on the art of conversation. Traditionally, they have been interpreted as indicative of the Georgian fascination with civility and politeness, instructing the reader in the proper behaviour for civilised discussion.
However, the work of the Independent minister Isaac Watts (1674-1748) reveals a different view. Watts achieved prominence as a writer on education and as a philosopher. He engaged with key Enlightenment debates concerning reason, dogmatism and freedom of thought.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
In 1741, Watts published The Improvement of the Mind, which outlined the most effective ways of acquiring and creating useful knowledge. Among these was conversation.
Watts viewed conversation as a tool for persuasion. This was not in the sense of compelling someone to your view – he explicitly warned against approaching conversation with a dogmatic mindset – but rather as a collective endeavour to reach the truth of a matter. Ultimately, this is a much more enduring form of persuasion.
The appeal of conversation
There is a logic to the appeal of conversational podcasts in a world of increasing isolation and division. Even the supposed great connector – social media – offers only a facade of conversation. While social media connects people more than ever before, the natural flow and deep engagement of a conversation is difficult to replicate online. Exchanges are rarely immediate, numerous voices are vying for position and tone of voice or expression is obscured behind faceless avatars.
Conversation, Watts argued, offers a greater clarity of understanding of an opposing position than a one-way interaction like reading (or scrolling). A person can explain their meaning in different terms if it is not initially clear. If questions arise, the speakers can unpack the nuances before becoming hostile.
Moreover, Watts argued, encountering a different perspective can draw the conversation closer to “evidence and truth” in unexpected ways.
This supports the idea that conversation is the best forum for better understanding a different stance from your own. Such a view paves the way for the kind of “agreeable disagreement” celebrated by The Rest is Politics.
It was not only that the nature of conversation facilitated better mutual understanding, in Watts’ view, but also that it offered unique creative possibilities in the pursuit of truth. The act of conversation demanded more active engagement of the mind and the “secret chambers of the soul,” drawing forth ideas which might otherwise have remained lodged deep in the recesses of the mind. Not only could hidden thoughts be revealed, but entirely new ones could be created through the process of conversing.
Watts likened two people in conversation to flints being struck together: in motion working together they could produce fire, but stationary and solitary nothing could be created. In solitude “our souls may be serene,” Watts wrote, “but not sparkling”.
Conversation and disagreement
Watts recognised that caution was needed to avoid the most likely pitfalls of conversation: the echo chamber and the risk of hostility.
He was emphatic that conversation with those whose opinions differed from your own was necessary. If knowledge and truth were to be discovered, then new ideas had to be considered. As noted, he also warned against dogma, advising patience regarding a firm and unalterable proposition until you have grounds for it.
Most interestingly, he warned against bothsidesism, or arguing a question pro and con for the sake of it. This, he argued, would embed confrontation in the conversation and prevent the mind from being in the proper position to uncover the truth.
Today, the polarisation resulting from avoiding views different from our own, and from deliberately seeking out binary positions for the sake of confrontation is all too apparent.
Yet the popularity of conversational political podcasts indicates the appetite for a different approach to political discussion. Though they didn’t have podcasts in the 18th century, conversation was a public endeavour, performed at coffee houses and replicated in print so the audience could also learn good practice and understand – so listen on.
Katie East, Senior Lecturer in the History of Radical Ideas, Newcastle University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
