Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • TannenArgumentCulture PDF

    Uploaded by

    rall13
    19 views8 pages

    Original Title

    TannenArgumentCulture.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    19 views8 pages

    TannenArgumentCulture PDF

    Uploaded by

    rall13

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    490+ Same Argemratsabunt drone Deion Tass The Argument Calves More iam Debate ts Dinfngue + 687 Debora Tantien, a professor of linguistics at Geargetonen University in Hrashington, D.C, published You Juct Don't Undesstand: Women and Men in Camersation ir 1990. An exploration af the compleaites of com Imuication between won and women, i became «national best-seller. Her subsequent work has continued to explare the interrelations of gen der and communication. and she hus become a frequent guest on rao ‘urd tefevisinn ews an talk shows. fn 1998 sla published Tae Arguinemt Culture, which won che Common Graud Book Award and from which the following piece hes been excenpted. Deborah Tannen The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue fn the spring of 1995, Horizons Theatre in Arlington, Virginia, pro- need two one-act plays [uc written about fansiy relation fieeetur, wanting te contribute 10 the reeoncilint and Jews, mounted ny plays in repertory with ewo one-act plays by an African-American playwright, Caleen Sinnerte Jennings. We had both written plays about thre sisters ther explored the ethic identities of ‘our Families (Jewish for me, African-American for ber) aund che rela- ‘ionship derwoen those identities and the Antorican context im which ‘we grew up. To stir interest in the plays and to explore the parallels be- tween her work and mine, the theater planaed a public dialogue be- ‘een Jennings anil me, to be held before the plays opened ‘As production got under way, Lantended the audition of actors for my plays. After the auditions cnded, just before. everyone headed hhome, the theater's public relations volunteer distributed copies of the fiyor ansunmeisg the public dialogue that she hud readied for distribu ion. 1 was horrified. The flyer announced that Caleen and I would dis- cuss “hw past (raumtas create understanding and conflict between Blacks and Jews toflay.” The flyer was trying tn geal by the throat the isaue that ve wished to ares indterly. Yes, we were conerrned with conflies betweru Blacks aud Jews, bur neither of us isan authority on (hat conflict, ace wr had uo intention of expounding en it. We hoped to do onr part 10 anveliorate the coufliet by foonsing on commonati Oar plays had many resonarices between them. We wanted to tile about oar work and let the resonances speak for themselves Fortunately, we were able to stop the flyers before they were dis wwibured and devise new ones that promised something we could deliver: “a discussion of heritage, identity, and complex farily relation ships in African-American amd Jowish-American culture as represented iu their plays.” Jennings noticed that the original flyer said ee evening would be “provocative” and ebanged it wo “thought-provoking.” What a world of difference is implied in that small change: how much berter to make people think, rather than simply to “provnke” rhem—as ofien as nol, to anger. Is is easy ta understand why conflict is so olten highlighted Weiters of headlines or promotional copy want to eatch attention and autraet an audience. They are usually under tine prossure, whieh Hes hem co establishes, conventionalized ways of expressing ideas in the absence of leisure to think up entirely new ones. ‘The promise of con- woversy seems an easy and natural way to rouse interest. But sori consequences ate often unistended: Stirring up animosities #0 get rise ont of people, though easy and “provocative,” can open ld ‘wonnds oF eroate new oncs that are hard te heal. This is ime of snany ‘dangers inherent in the argoment culture, In the argument culture, critrism, attack, oF opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding 1 penple ar ideas. 1 use the phrase “culture of critique” to capture this aspect, “Critique™ in this sense is not a general term for analysis or interpretation but ruther a synonyin for criticism, leis the automavic nature of this response shat Iam calling attertion (o—and calling into question, Sometimes passionace opposition, strong verbal attack, are appropriate and called for. No one knows tis better than those who have lived under repressive regimes that forbid public opposition. ‘The Yegostavian-burn poet Charles Simi is one. “There are ‘monicmrs in life,” be writes, “wher icue invective is called far, when it becomes an absolute necessity. ont of a denp sonse of justice, to dex nnounce, snark, vituperaty, lash out in the stringest possible language.” (applaud and endorse this view. ‘There are times when itis necessary and right to ight—to defend your country or yoursel, to argue for right agaiust wrong or against affensive or dungerows ideas or actions What 1 question is the ubiquity, the kucejerk naturn, of np poaching almost any isi, problens, or public person in am adversar- ial way: One of the dangors of the habitual wse of adversarial chetarie is « kind of verbal inflation-—a rhetorical boy who eried wolf: ‘The 495 4 Some trgneannte abit dont legitimate, necessary denunciation is muted, eves last in the general sacyphony of oppositional shorting, What I question is using oppasi- tion te ascomplish every geal, even those. that do not require fighting Inc night also (ar hexter) be aeeomplished by other means, such as exe ploring, expanctiag, discussing, investigating. and the exchanging of fdeos suggested by the word “dialogue.” [am questioning the assummp- fio that everything is a matter of polarized opposites, dhe proverbial “ewe sides to every question” thac we think embodies open-mindeduess and expansive thinking. fo a word, the type of opposition | am questioning is what f call Sagouisia.” Luse this term, whieh derives from the Greek word for Seomtest,” agonia, te mean au automatic warkke stance—not dhe lit val oppusition of fighting against an attacker or the unavoidable ‘opposition that arises organically in response 10 conilicting ideas or ations, An agonistic response, to me, is a kind af programnuned co fentiousaess—a prepatterned, unthinking use of Sghsing to accom plish gouts that slo nor avcessarily require i. How Useful Are Fights? Noticing thae public discourse su often takes the forin uf heated args~ ‘meats—of having a fight—mnde me ask how wseful itis in our per- sonal fives to sole differences hy arguing. Given what | kuow about having usguments in private life, Thad ¢o conclude that it is, in many 5, not very usefil {in clase relationships it is possible 10 find ways of arguing thac re= sult in better understanding and solving prublewis. But with most ar- innents, file is resolved, worked oul, of achieved shea two people et angries and less retional by the minute. When you're having an at- gsumeat with someone, you'ee usually uve uying to understand what the other person is saying. or what in their experience leads them to say it, Instead, you're readying your respouse: listening for weaknesses in logic to leap on, points you can distort to make the other person wok bad aad yourself look good. Sometimes you know. on some back burner of your minul, thar you're doing this—that there's a kerusl af rath iv what your adversary is saying and a bit of unfair twisting in what you're saying. Sometimes yate da this because you're angry, but somtimes its just the temptation to take aie at a point made along Ue way becanse is an ensy target. Here's a exumple of how this happened in an argument between 4 eunyple why hd been married foe aver fifty years, The lhasbune Drionan Te The Argunen Clu Afri fom Osbate to Diahgue © $389 wanted io join an LIMO by signing over their Medioare heneits to save snoney. The wife abjected because it would snean slie could no longer see the doctor she know and trusted. [a arguing her point of view, she “Hike Dr. B. He knows mo, he’s interested in me. He ealls me by y frst name.” The husband parvied the last point “I don't like that He's much younger thant we are. He shouldn't be calling us by frst ame.” But the form of adress Dr. B. uses was irrelevant. The wife ‘vas trying (@ vommunicate that she felt comfortable with the doctar she kuew, that she hud a relationship with him. Ji ealling hee by first name was just one of a list of details she was marshaling to explain hee comfort with hin, Picking on this one detail dict not change hor view—and did not adkimess her concera. IC wax just a way 10 win the argument, We ate all guilty, at tines, of seizing ou irrelovant details, distort- ing someone else's position the better to oppose it, when we're arguing, with those wo're closest to, But we are rarely dependert on these fights as sources of information. ‘The same tactics are common when pul discourse is caxzied out on the mode! of personal fights. And the results are dangerous when listeners are luoking to these interchanges to. get aveded information or practical resus Fights have winners and losers. 1 you've fighting 0 win, the temptation is great to demy facts that support your opponents views aand (o fiter what you know: saying ouly what supports your side. ln the extrome form. it enconages people to misrepresent or even ta lie, We accept this risk because we beliove we eat tell when somenne is ly- ing, The problem is, we can’t Paul Ekman, « psychologist at the University af California, San Francisen, studies lying. He set up experiments in which indivickials wore videotsped talking about their emotions, actions, or bebeé— some truthfully, some not. He has shown these videotapes to thaw sanch of people, asking shen to identify rhe Kars and also to say how sure they were about their judgments, Ilis Findings are chilling: Most people performed not much better than chance, and those who did dhe ‘worst hnd just as inueh confidence in tir judgments as the few who were really able to detect firs. Intrigued by the linplications ofthis re- search in vations walks of life, Dx, Ekman repeated this experiment with groups uf people whose jobs require then to saiff out kes: judges, lawyers, police, psychotherapists, and employees of the CIA. PBI, nd ATE (Bureau of Aleohol, Tohacen, and Firearms). Thoy were no hotter a deterting wiw was telling the wile than the rest of us. The only group tha did significanily better were members of the U8. Seenee 419 + Some Argeats about drpunen Service, ‘This finding gives some comfort when it comes to the Secret Service but not much when it coumes to every other facet of public lif, ‘Two Sides to Every Question One deterinination to pursue suth by setting wp a fighs between two sides lends us to believe that every issue has two sides—niv more. no less: If oth sides are given a forum to comfzont each other, al de rele- vant information will esnerge, and the best case will be made for euch side. But opposition dovs not lead i» truth when au issue is not eom= posed oF two opposing sides but is @ erystal of many sides. Ofven the ‘ruth isin the compiex middle, nor the oversimplified extremes, Wo love using the word “dehatr” as a way of cepresenting issues: the abortian debate, the health eare debate, the affirmative action de- Jaie—even “the great backpacking vs. car camping debate.” The ubiquity of this word in itself shows our tendency to concepmalize is- sues in a way that predisposes public diseussion 10 be polarized, framed as two opposing sides that give each other no ground, ‘There are many problems with this approach, [f you begin with the assump: tion that there must be an “other side,” you may end up scouring the tmargins of science or the fringes of lunacy wo find it, As a result, proven facts, such as what we kniow about how the earth avd its in habitants evolved, are set on a par with claims tbat are kaown (o have no basis in fuct, such as creationism: The conviction that there are two sides co every story ean prompt writers oF producers to dig up an “other side,” sv kooks wha suite out right falsehoods are given a platform in public discourse, counts, in part, for the bizarre phenomenon of Holocaust denial Denicrs, as Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt shows, have hboen successful in gaining television airtime avd cumpus newspaper coverage by masquerading as “the other side” in a “debate.” Appearance in print or on television iaas & way of lending logitie macy, s0 haseloss slaiins take on a mantle of possibility. Lipsiadt shows how Holocuust deniers disprite established facts of history, and then reasonable spokespersons use their having been disputed as a ba- sis for questioning known facts. The actor Robert Mitchum, for oxam- ple, interviewed in Esquire, expresiad doubt about tho Holocaust When the interviewer asked about the slaughter of six milion Jews, Mitchun replied, “I don't know. People dispute that.” Continual refer: ene ta “the ater side” zosulis in a pervasive convietion that every Phonan Tw The Arun Calter: Mocing fm Debate to Diafogus * 44 W has another side—with the result that people begin to doubt the existence of any facts at all ‘The Expense of Time and Spieit Lipstadt’s book meticulously exposes the methods used by deniers to falsify the overwhelming historic evidence that the Holocaust we. curred. That a scholar had to invest yeaus of her professional life weit- ing « book unraveling efforts to deny something that was about ax well known and well documented as any historical fact has ever been while those who personally experienced aad witnessed it are stil alivemis testament to another way that the argument culture limits our knowledge rather thon expanding it. Talent and effort are wasted refuting oudandlish claims that should never ave been given a plat- form in the first place. Talent ond effort are also wasted when individ vals who have been unfairly attacked must spend years of their ere~ ative lives defending themselves rather chan advancing their work, ‘The entire society loses their creative efforts, This is what happened with scientist Robert Calle 20 Dr: Gallo is the American viologist who cadiscovered the AIDS virus, Le is also the one who developed the technique for studying ‘Teells, which made that discovery possible, And Callo’s work was seminal in developing the test to detect the AIDS virus in blood, the first and for long time the only means known of stemming the tide of death from AIDS. But in 1989, Gallo became the object of « four-year investigation into allegations that he fad stolen the AIDS virus fom Luc Moutagnier of the Pasteur Institute it Paris, who had! independ ently idemified the AIDS virus, Simultuneous investigations by the National Institutes of Clealth, the office of Michigen Congressman John Dingell. and the National Academy of Sciences barreled ahead long after Gallo aad Montagnier settled the dispute to their mutual sfaction, In 1993 ehe investigations conctuded that Gallo had dane nothing wrong. Nothing. But this exeneration eannot be cousidered happy ending. Never mind the personal suffering of Gallo, who was riled when he should have been hernided as a hero, Never mind that, i his words, "These were the most psinful years and horvible yeurs of any life.” The dreadful, siconscionable result of the fruitless investiga- Lions is that Gallo had to spend four years fighting the accusations i- stead of fighting AIDS. ‘The investigations, orcording to journulist Nicholas Wade, were spasked by an artele about Callo writen in the currency popular 492+ Sonu Arguments abst Angament DPrnonma tows The Argue Cadre: Moving frm Debate ta Binlogue + 493 spirit of demonogesphy: not 10 praise the person it foatures but to bury |him—to show his weaknesses, his villainows sie, The implication chat Gallo had stolen the AIDS virus was created to fill a requigcznent of the iscourse: In demonography, writers must find uegative sides of their subjects to display for readers who enjoy secing heroes transformed into villains. The suspicion led ta investigations, and the investigations became a juggernaut dhat acquired a life af its own, fed by the enthusi asm for attack on public figures that isthe culture of ct Metaphors: We Are What We Speak Perhaps one reason suspicions of Robert Gallo were s0 zealously inves- tigated is that the scenario af an arnbitious acientise ready to do any- ‘hing to defeat a rival appeals to our sense of story; itis the kind of narrative wo are ready to believe. Culture, in a sense, is an envivon- ment of narratives that we hear repeatedly until they seem to make self-evident sense in explaining lruman behavior, Thinking of human interactions as battles is a metaphorical frame throngh which we learn ‘0 regard the world and the people ini All language uses metaphors lo express ideas; some anetaphoric ‘words and expressions are novel, made up for the occasion, but more are catcitied in the language, They are simply the way we think it is hnatural to express ideas, We don’t think of them as metaphors, Someone who says, “Be careful: You aren't a cat; you don’t have nine lives,” is explicitly comparing you to a cat, because the eat is nasned in words. But what if someone says. “Don’t pussyfoot around: get to the point”? “There is no explicit comparison to a eat, but the comparison is there nonetheless, implied in the ward "pussyfaot.” This expr robably developedl as a reference to the moverueats of a eal cai. jously cireling a suspicious object. I doubt that individuals using the word “pnssyfoot” think consciously of eats. More often than not, we use expressions without thinking about theie anctaphoric implications But that doesn't mican those implications are aot iniduencing us. Ata meeting, a general disemssion became so animated tha ficipam who wanted to corament prefaced his remark by saying. “Vl like t leap into the fray.” Another participant called out, “Or abare your thoughts.” Everyunc laughed, By suggesting u different phrasing, she called attention to what would probably have otherwise gone i noticed: “Leap into the fray* characterized the lively discuscvss as 4 :netaphorical battle Americans talk about almost everything as if it were a war. A book hour the history of linguistics is called The Linguistics Wars, A ‘magazine article about claims that science is not completely obj tive is titled “The Science Wars.” One about beeast cancer der tion is “The Mammogram War”: about coinpetition among caterers, “Party Wars"—and on and on in & potentially endless list. Politics, of course, is a prime candidate, One of innumerable possible examples, the headline of « story reporting that the Democratic National Convention ronvinated Bill Clinton to run for « second term declares, SDEMOCHATS SEND CLINTON INTO BATTLE FOR A 2D THAM,” But medicine as frequent a candidate, as we talk about baring and conquering disvase. Headlines are intentionally devised to attract attention, but we all, use military of attack imagery in everyday expressions without thinke- ing about it: “Take a shot at it." “I don’t want to be shot down,” “He went off half cocked,” “Thats hall the battle.” Why does it matter that our public discourse is filed with military metaphors? Aren't they just words? Why not talk about something that matlers—like actions? Because words matter, When we think we are using language, lan- uage is using us. As Finguist Dwight Bolinger put it (employing w mil- itary metaphor), language is like a loaded gun: It ean be fined inten sionally, but it ean sound or kill just as surely when fired accidentally. ‘The terms ia which we tatk about something shape the way we think about it—and even what we see. ‘The power of words to shape perception has been proven by r- searchers in controlled experiments. Paychologists Elizabeth Lofeus and John Palmer, for example, found that the terms in which people are asked to recall something effect what they rocall. The re- searchers showed subjects a film of reo ears colliding, then asked hhow fast the cars were going; one seek later, they asked whether there had been any broken glass. Some subjects were asked, “About hhow fast were the cars geing when they bumped into each other?” Others were asked, “About how fast were the cars going whon thoy smashed into each other?” “Those who read the question with ihe vorb “smashed” estimated that the. cars sere going faster, They wore also. more likely t0 “rmembrs” having seen broken glass. (There wasn't any.) ‘This is how language works. It invisibly molds our way of thinking shout people, actions, and the world uround us, Military metaphors {cain sto think bout —and see—everything in terra of fighting, Met, andl wae. This perspective then limits our imaginations when we sonsider what we can do about situations we would like to understand or change 494+ Some Arguments abou Argument Mud Splatters % Our fondness for the fight seenario leads us «o fratne many conyplex hhunian interactions as « battle betwers two sides. This then shape the way we understand what happened and how we regard the partici pants. One unfortunate result is chat fights make a mess in which tveryone is omddied. The person attacked is olten decmed just as Builty as the attacker ‘The injustice ofthis i clear i you think back 10 childhood. Many of ws sill harbor anger as we rveall atime (or many times) a sibling or Dlaysate started a fight—but both of us gor blamed, Actions occur in 4 steeara, each a zesponse to what eame before, Where you punclate ther can change their meaning just as you can change the meaning of ‘a sentence by punctuating it in ane place o¢ another Like a parent despairing of trying to sort out which child started a fight, people often respond to those involved in a public dispute as if booth were equally guilty. When champion figure skater Nancy Kerrigan ras struck on the knee shoraly before the 1994 Olympics in Nexway and the thea-husband of another champion skater, Tonya Hacdling, impli- ‘cated his wife in planing the attack, the event was characterised us & Fight between two skaters that obscuved their differing roles. As both skaters headed forthe Olympic competition, their potential meeting was dleseribed as a “long-anticipated figure-skating shootout.” Two years later, the event was referred to not as “the attack on Nancy Kerrigan” but as “the rivalry surrounding Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan.” By « similar process, the Seuate Judiciary Committee hearings to * the nomination of Clarence ‘Theimas for Supreae Court jus- tice at which Anita Hill was called to testily are reguilacly referred to a6 the “1ll-Thomas hearings.” obscuring tie very different roles played by Hill and Thomas. Although testimony hy Anita Hill was the oces- sion for eopening the hearings, they were stil) the Clarence Thomas confirmation hwarings. Their purpose was to evaluate Thomas’ candi, acy: Framing these hearings as u two-sides dispute between IHil aud Thomas allowed the senators to focus their investigation un cross- examining Hill rather than secking other sorts of evidence, for exam ple by consulting experts on sexual harassinent to ascertain whether Hills account seed plausibie. Slush-and-Burn Thinking Approaching situations lke warviors in butte leads tothe ussunption iat intellectual inquiry, 100, is a game of attack, eounterattacke, and 8 Disease Tassen The Angunent Cufwre: Moving from Debate to Viale + 495 self-defense, In this spirit, critical thinking is syaoaymous with criti izing, Tu many classroonis, students are encouraged to read someane’s life work, then rip ic shreds. Though criticism is one form of eritical thinking—and an essential one—so are integrating ideas froin dis- parate fields and examining che context out of which ideas grow. Opposition does not lead to the whole truth when we ask only, "What's ‘wrong with this?” and sever “What can we use froat this ix building new theory, a new understanding?” ‘Therr are many ways that unrelenting criticism is destructive in itself. In innumerable small dramas mirvoring what happened to Robert Gallo (but on a much more modest scale), our most creative thinkers can waste time and effort responding to critics motivated less by a gonuine concern about weaknesses in their work than by desine to find something to attack. All of society loses when creative people are discouraged from their pursuits by unfair criticism. (This 4+ particularly likely (o happen since, as Kay Redfield Jamison shows in her book Touched with Fire, many of those who are ynusnally ere- ative are also unusually sensitive: their sensitivity ofien dsives their creativity.) If the crticiem is uawacranted, many will say, you ace free to ar- gar against it, to defend yourself. But there are probloms with this, too, Not only does self-defense take time and draw off energy that would better be spent on new creative work, but any move to defend yourself makes you appear, well, defensive, For example, when au au thor wrote @ letter ta the editor protesting a review he considered un fair, the reviewer (who is typically given the laat word) cured the very fact chat the author defended himself into a weapon with which to at- tack again. The reviewer's response begun, “I haven't much time 10 waste on the kind of writer who squanders his talent drafting angry letters 10 reviewers.” ‘The argument culture limits thn information we got rather than broadening it in another way. When a certain kind of interaction is tive nhovm, those who feel comfortable with that type of interaction are drawn to participate, and those who do not feel comfortable with it re- cil and go elsewhere. If public diseourse included a broad range of {ypes, we would he making room for individuals with different tem- pperaments co take part and contribute theie perspectives and insighes But when debate, oppusition, and fights overwhelmingly predominate, those who enjoy verbal sparring are likely to take par—by calling in ‘0 talk shows, writing leters to the editor ar articles, Becoming jour- ‘nalists—anu those who cannot comfortably take part in appositonal discourse, or do not wish to, ae likely to opt out, 240 © Some Arrante about Argent ‘This winnowing process is easy to see in apprenticeship programs such as acting school, law schoot, and graduate school. A wounass who was isleutified in her univessity drama program as showing extep- mise was encouraged to go to New York to study acting. Ful wm, she was accepted by a famous acting school where the teaching onethod entailed the teacher screaming at students, goading and insulting them as a way to bring owt the best in them. This worked well with many of the students but not with her. Rather than rising 10 the occasion when attacked, she cringed, becoming less able to draw on her talent, mot more. Alter a yeur, she dropped ont, I could be that she sixuply didn't have what it took—buc this will never be known, because te adversarial style of teaching did not ullow hr tw show what talent she had. Polarizing Complexity: Nature or Nurture? Few issues come with twa nent, and neatly opposed, sides. Agnin, 1 hhave seen this in the domain of gender. One common polarization is an opposition between ewo sources of differences between wanien and nen: “cultuee,” or “nurture,” on one hand and “biology,” or “ature.” on the other Shortly after the publication of You Jeet Don't Understand, I was asked by a journalist what question I most often encountered about women's and men’s conversational styles, Ttald hor, “Whether the dif- ferences | describe are biological or cultural.” The journalist laighed Paualed, I asked why dis made her laugh. She expluined that ste bad always been so certain that any significant differences are cultural rather than biological in origin that the question struck her us absurd So E should not have been surprised witen U read, in the artile she ‘wrote, that the two questions Lam most frequently asked are “Why do women nag?” and “Why won't men ask for dicetions?* Her ideolog cal certainty that the question Iam most frequently asked was absurd Jed her to ignore my answer and get a fact wrong in her report of ayy ‘experience Some people are convinced that any significant differeuces be teen men and woinen arp entirely or overwhelmingly de to cultural influences—ihe way we treat gitls and boys, and men’s dominance of ‘women in society. Oets are convinced that any significant differences are entitely or overwhelmingly due to biology: te physical Iaets of fee anale and anale bodies, hormones, and eeproductive functions, Many probleins are caused by franning the question ss a dichotomy: Are bre hhaviors that pattern by sex biological ov his polarization po TANNIN Te Argun Cubans Moving fons hae to Dislgue © 497 encourages these on one side to demonize those who take the other view; whic lends in turn to misrepresenting the work of those who are assigned to the opposing catnp, Finally, and most devastatingly, i pre- vents us from exploring he interaction of biological and cultural fac- tors—factors that mus, and can only, be understood together, By pos. ing the question as either/or, we reinforce a false assumption that biological and cultural factors are separable and preclide the invosti- gations that would help us understand their interrelationship, When a problem is posed in « way that polarizes, che solution is often obscured before the soarch is under way: An Eu {i an argument culture aggressive tactics aze valued for their own sake. For exemple, « womat called into a talk show on which Iwas n gucet to say, “When [im in a place where « man is smoking, and there's & no-smoking sign, instead of saying to him “Vou aren't allowed to smoke in here, Put that out,’ I say, ‘'m awfully sorry, but [ have asthina, so your smoking makes it hard for me to breathe. Would you tnind terribly not smoking?” Whenever I say this, the man is extremely polite and solicitous, and he puts his cigarette oui, and 1 say, “Oh, of Aggression thank you, thank you!” as if he's done a wonderful thing for me. Why do I do that?” | think this woman expected me to say that she needs assertiveness training to leara to confront smokers iu a more aggressive manner, Instea told her that there was nothing wrong with her style of yot- ziore likely wv load tothe result she desives. If she tied to alter his be~ huavior by teminding him of the rules, he might well rebel: “Who made you the enforcer? Mind your own business!” Indeed, who gives any of ts the authority (o ser others strwight when we think they're breaking rules? Another calle disagreed with me, saying the first valler’s style was “self-abesing”™ and thet was no reason for her 10 ase it. But I per- sisted: Thece is nothing necessarily destructive about conventional self-effacement. Human relations depend on the agreement to use such verbal conventions. I believe the mistake this caller was mak- ing—a mistake many of us naake—was to confuse ritual sell elfacerment with the livral kind. All humaus selatins reise us to Fine ‘ways to get what, we want from others without seeming to deminate s 498 + Some Arguments abut Argument Dawns DS The seuamon Cree: Sovne five Debate ro Diane + 490 them. Allowing others to feel they are doing what you want for a rea som less butmiliating to them fulfills this need ‘Thinking of yourself as the wronged party who is victimized by @ Jawbrealking boor makes it harder t9 see the value of this method. But suppose you are the person addicted to smoking who lights up (know ingly or aot) in a no-smoking zone. Would you like strangers to yell at you to stop smoking, or would you rather be allowed ta seve face by Being asked politely to siop in order to help them out? Or imogine yourself having broken « rile inadvertontly (which is not wo imply rules are broken only by mistake; itis only co say that sometimes they are). Would yor like soane stranger to swoop down on you and begin berating you, or would you rather be asked politely to comply? As this cxample shows, conflicts cun sometimes be resolved without confrontational ncties, but current conventional wisdom often devalues less confrontational tactics even if they work wall, favoring more aggres- sive strategies even if they get less favorable results. I's us if we value n fight for its own sake, not for its effectivencss in resolving disputes. ‘This ethic shows wp in many contexts. In & review of a contentions book, for example, a reviower wrote, “Always provocative, sometimes infuriating, this collection reminds us that the purpose of art is nt to confirm and coddle but to provoke and confront.” This false di

    You might also like