Imbolc Woodpecker Moon
Deborah Tannen was on NPR yesterday. She has a new book out called The Argument Culture. I listened to most of her presentation as I did my rounds to pick up the sub-woofer and learn more about the Great Scanning Project. I just bought the book.
She made me stop and examine my own complicity in this culture. Too often, she said, we escalate our arguments with war metaphors or dualistic thinking, seeing only one side of an argument or, at best, two sides when, in fact, some arguments only have one side and most have many.
As an example of an argument with only side, she cited the rage of holocaust denial that surfaced in the US a decade or so ago. It happened, in large part, she said, because we believe every argument has two-sides and needs balance. Especially journalists hold this view. In this case established history leaves no room for doubt, no room for deniers, so there is, in fact, only side to this question. The reality of the holocaust. It distorts the reality of holocaust to have it “balanced” by the views of those who deny it happened.
Another example of an argument with only side, she said, is climate change. I cheered here. When 98% of scientists agree and the 2% are on the fringe, there is no argument to be had.
Here’s my admitted complicity. When I enter the argumentative space, I set out to win. Not to listen. Not to consider the other point of view, but to beat it down, defeat it, send it limping, head-hung out of the arena. Continue reading Post ID 13432