I’ve been reading another book by the sociolinguist Deborah Tannen: The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words (1998). It’s making me think hard about how people interact online and elsewhere; what’s assumed to be “the norm” for interaction, and how different groups experience interaction differently.
(UPDATE APR. 18: A public discussion event in London on Tues. Apr. 19, Venus Rising, at the Dana Centre, broaches the closely related topic of women and technology.)
Later on I’ll be posting some articles exploring the implications of Tannen’s observations to the blogosphere, online discussion forums, and journalism. But for now, to set the context, here’s an excerpt from the first chapter which encapsulates the book’s premise…
“…In the argument culture, criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding to people or ideas. …It is the automatic nature of this response that I am calling attention to – and calling into question. …What I question is the ubiquity, the knee-jerk nature, of approaching almost any issue, problem, or public person in an adversarial way. …What I question is using opposition to accomplish every goal, even those that do not require fighting but might also (or better) be accomplished by other means, such as exploring, expanding, discussing, investigating, and the exchanging of ideas suggested by the word “dialogue.” I am questioning the assumption that everything is a matter of polar opposites, the proverbial “two sides to every question,” that we think embodies open-mindedness and expansive thinking.
“In a word, the type of opposition I am questioning is what I call agonism. I use this term – which derives from the Greek word for “contest” (agonia), to mean an automatic warlike stance – not the literal opposition of fighting against an attacker… An agonistic response is, to me, a kind of programmed contentiousness – a prepatterned, unthinking use of fighting to accomplish goals that do not necessarily require it.
“…When you’re having an argument with someone, you’re usually not trying to understand what the other person is saying, or what in their experience leads them to say it. Instead, you’re readying your response: listening for weaknesses in logic to leap on, points you can distort to make the other person look bad and yourself look good.
“The argument culture limits the information we get rather than broadening it in another way. When a certain type of interaction is the norm, those who feel comfortable with that interaction will be drawn to participate, and those who do not feel comfortable with it recoil and go elsewhere. If public discourse included a broad range of [interaction] types, we would be making room for individuals with different temperaments to take part and contribute their perspectives and insights. But when debates, opposition, and fights overwhelmingly predominate, those who enjoy verbal sparring are likely to take part. …Those who cannot comfortably take part in oppositional discourse, or who do not wish to, are likely to opt out.
“I do not believe we should put aside the argument model of public discourse entirely, but we need to rethink whether this is the only way, or always the best way, to carry out our affairs. …This does not mean there can be no negativity, criticism, or disagreement. It simply means we can be more creative in our way of managing all of these, which are inevitable and useful. In dialogue, each statement that one person makes is qualified by someone else, until the series of statements and qualifications moves closer to a fuller truth. Dialogue does not preclude negativity. …In dialogue there is opposition, yes, but no head-on collision. Smashing heads does not open minds.”
OK, that’s enough for the excerpt. Food for thought. I’ll expand on this later when I have time. In the meantime, I’d like to hear your views on Tannen’s premise. Personally, I suspect this is a major underlying issue for the recent “Where are the female bloggers?” debate that rippled through the blogosphere, discussion groups, and even the mainstream media.
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds
BlogoSquare
8 Comments so far (Add 1 more)