Does anyone else feel like there is so much arguing happening that little can be done to resolve the conflicts we face in the world today? Does it seem to anyone else that we each have become so entrenched in our own beliefs and opinions that we have shut out any possibilities of alternative ideas?
I found this book while researching online and I think it raises some very interesting points.
The Argument Culture
Moving From Debate to Dialogue
By Deborah Tannen
Fighting for Our Lives
This is not another book about civility. "Civility" suggests a superficial, pinky-in-the-air veneer of politeness spread thin over human relations like a layer of marmalade over toast. This book is about a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight. It is a tendency in Western culture in general, and in the United States in particular, that has a long history and a deep, thick, and far-ranging root system. It has served us well in many ways but in recent years has become so exaggerated that it is getting in the way of solving our problems. Our spirits are corroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention -- an argument culture.
The argument culture urges us to approach the world -- and the people in it -- in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as "both sides"; the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you're really thinking is to criticize.
Books & Reading: Chapter One
In her criticism, Larissa MacFarquhar writes:
BUT besides her strangely un-American attachment to mediation, what Tannen is missing is that conflict is fun. We love fighting for its own sake, even when one side is obviously wrong. Who knows why we do -- Tannen cites a study that found that people who have severe mental disabilities often argue with one another because arguing, amusingly enough, turns out to be one of the least cognitively challenging ways to interact. But for whatever reason, conflict isn't just crudely entertaining -- it's romantic. Witness that grand classic of American political heroism, ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'': there's just as much idealism attached to crazy intransigence as to any particular political project. Imagine Jimmy Stewart with Tannen at his side instead of Jean Arthur: he and those corrupt guys would have worked something out, and he would have never had to stay up all night. No movie.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/...05macfart.html
As the world becomes increasingly polarized in its views and problem solving has been paralyzed by its' divisions, can we really say that conflict is fun?