In Part 1, I explored my perplexing fear reaction about arguing with someone on social media.
Well, I was not really arguing, I was just
trying to engage. I asked people questions about their ideas. I
was trying to step out of my own bubble.
But I failed completely. Several times. I wasn't really expecting a reasoned argument, but I
was expecting some sort of answers to simple questions about their views.
However, asking questions was seen as attack; my questions were met with outrage and offence.
I'm sure you've seen it too.
 |
| Fun? For some... |
When and why did my much-loved calm and
respectful argument about differing ideas deteriorate into a word fight to
defend territory?
After the intensity of multiple minor online
conflicts faded, I found myself thinking about the meaning of the word argument.
statements
and reasoning in support of a proposition or causing belief in a doubtful
matter, from Latin arguere 'make clear, make known, prove'. Sense passed
through 'subject of contention' (1590s) to 'a quarrel' (by 1911)
That last word, quarrel, jumps out:
angry
dispute, from Latin querella 'complaint, accusation; lamentation'. Sense
of 'contention between persons' (1570s)
Hold on: quarrel means the exact opposite of argument! An argument is
between two propositions (ideas), while a quarrel is between two people. The first describes 'making clear', the second describes 'disputing'.
What word could I use to reassure others that I just wanted
some 'old-fashioned' respectful reasoning in support of a proposition? What would be a
useful replacement for the lost meaning of argument and argue.
Something engaging, not threatening.
Debate? Discuss? Explore? A bit too vague.
Something that keeps the focus on 'reasoning in support' of ideas. I found expound, exposit, exegete. 'Hi S, I
would love to hear you expound your idea further.' Yeah, nah.
It seems not. We've lost the really useful
word argument through the meaning transition from 'reasoned statements of
support' to 'a quarrel'.
And quarrel we do.
 |
| Plato said 'ignorance', not me |
We all inherit, absorb and are taught opinions as we grow up, from our family and friends, through our formal education, and as part of 'packages' of ideas that we are given or choose (i.e. an ideology or religion). We don't reason our way to each point of view we hold. Our inherited opinions can remain completely unexamined for life. Even in higher education, students often accept the assumptions and views of a field of study without question, and what passes for academic 'argument' is merely repeating the accepted orthodoxies.
The art and enjoyment of (genuine*) argument is
found in small pockets of society only.
I knew that not everyone is comfortable with
examining ideas or skilled at logical critical thinking; it is a specific set of skills you
are taught and encouraged to use if you are lucky, and continue to refine through life. I
know that not everyone enjoys a (genuine) argument like me.
So, I wasn't surprised that asking questions
didn't result in robustly reasoned arguments. But I was stunned at how badly it
all went.
I hadn't understood the 'rules' of quarrelling.
But I soon realised there was a lot going on.
I worked out quickly that my opening question was perceived as the first salvo in a battle.
'Why do you think x?', coming out of the
blue as it did, was interpreted as, 'How could you possibly think x, you complete moron'?
Perhaps they thought I was trying to trap,
mock, or humiliate them. Maybe a history of angry disagreement has left them
trigger shy. Perhaps asking questions is never neutral to them.
I also tried 'What are your reasons for thinking x?' and even less direct, 'What are you concerned about?' No more successful.
My body's fear reaction had been a warning! I was unknowingly entering a battle. Belatedly, I had learned the first rule of quarrelling: asking is an attack.
My body's fear reaction had been a warning! I was unknowingly entering a battle. Belatedly, I had learned the first rule of quarrelling: asking is an attack.
I felt a bit frustrated searching around for less
confronting questions. But my strongest feeling was irritation about them
taking offence.
Taking offence is an extremely potent act in a conversation.
For most of us, knowing that we have offended
or upset another person is sufficient for us to stop what we are saying. This
is the usual social response, an interpersonal instinct that rests
on empathy and desire for mutual good-will. We (usually) don't like to hurt other people,
something we understand as either empathy or enlightened self-interest (i.e. we
don’t want to be hurt back.)
I didn't want to hurt anyone. I
didn't like the feeling of upsetting them.
However, I felt they were not playing fair.
 |
| How GOOD is getting offended! |
This saying works in a quarrel in a somewhat
twisted form: taking offence (getting upset) is a very good defence (against
explaining yourself or thinking clearly.)
Getting offended justified not having to explain their opinion, because: offended.
Getting offended justified not having to explain their opinion, because: offended.
Some immediately declared a violation of their right to free
speech.** 'I have a right to my own opinion!' and 'We have freedom of speech in
Australia, Mae!'
Um, keep your opinion. It's your right, sure.
However, it's a perversion of an important
principle to get offended when you are asked to explain your point of view.
This is really unfair for two reasons. Our
natural social civility ensures we (usually) don't persist if someone gets
upset about a topic. This makes it a successful ploy to avoid any actual discussion on the topic. Secondly, no one is attacking anyone's 'rights' by asking them a question,
even much tougher ones than I did.
So, the second rule of quarrelling is taking
offence is the best defence for your point of view.
But why is asking a question seen as an attack in the first place?
I think this happens because many people see their
opinions as part of themselves. It's not that they HAVE opinions; for some, people ARE their opinions.
Some people wrap their ideas and
opinions into the core of their identity; rather than seeing ideas as
neutral 'things' that a person holds and can pick up and put down.
We all do this to some extent; but some much more than others.
Because in one way, ideas are not neutral.
Our ideas are situated in our personal history and our ongoing relationships
with family and friends. For most of us, our ideas are a part of our
social 'place'; we share ideas as social tools for belonging in relationships which are important to us. Our
opinions and points of view express how we see ourselves belonging in our
social world. Given this role, our ideas are not easily or lightly changed.
The unexamined ideas we all inherit or imbibe from our
families or friends are part of belonging to our 'tribe'. Therefore, disagreement
may not just feel like a threat to someone's self-concept, but a threat to
their social network and their view of themselves in the world.
If people see their opinions as part of
their identity, then questions become a personal threat. You are not asking
about facts or evidence; you are attacking their very being.
 |
| I HAVE the tick! |
It's hard to put myself into their shoes as I
don't find questions themselves threatening. For sure, I have plenty of unexamined opinions. But in fact, no one asked me why I
thought what I do. I was just wrong. Their ideas seemed to have a big 'I am
right' tick and the reason they are is right has never been considered.
Successful engagement between people who disagree requires they can all comfortably hold their ideas 'lightly' and
outside their sense of self (at least temporarily).
A (genuine) argument requires both people to see ideas as important to identity, but neutral, and to value reasoning and argument as making those ideas better and clearer. The focus is on the ideas, and on making things clearer.
A (genuine) argument requires both people to see ideas as important to identity, but neutral, and to value reasoning and argument as making those ideas better and clearer. The focus is on the ideas, and on making things clearer.
In contrast, a quarrel results when ideas are
held fiercely as deeply personal and part of social belonging. The focus is on the
person. If you perceive you and your whole 'tribe' are being
attacked, getting upset and offended probably seems quite reasonable - it's a justified personal
defence.
And that's what happened to me. I
was immediately seen as a nasty person attacking other people for no reason. I felt required to
'back down' - to desist from my
awful unwarranted attack - when I hadn't tried to hurt of offend anyone. I couldn't make my intention clear.
This partially explained my sense of things being unfair. I felt misunderstood and maligned. I felt frustrated and irritated that something I thought should be simple had gone so badly.
This partially explained my sense of things being unfair. I felt misunderstood and maligned. I felt frustrated and irritated that something I thought should be simple had gone so badly.
This morning, I noticed my very first quarreller, S, had
posted another distorted claim.
I left her post unanswered.
But I kept on thinking about what else felt
unfair about my experience. Even more on arguments to come!
Footnotes
* I found I had to write genuine each time I wrote argument. When I left out genuine or real, it read as if I meant 'an angry dispute' instead. The original meaning of argument is so well and truly lost. Please give me a small moment in my word grief.
* I found I had to write genuine each time I wrote argument. When I left out genuine or real, it read as if I meant 'an angry dispute' instead. The original meaning of argument is so well and truly lost. Please give me a small moment in my word grief.
** In fact, Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional
or statutory declaration of rights; political speech is protected from criminal prosecution through common law.
Images, all used under Creative Commons
Images, all used under Creative Commons
- Foodfight: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Food_Fight
- Plato quote: https://ifunny.co/picture/most-people-are-not-just-comfortable-in-their-ignorance-but-YyBUelrk3
- Offence defence: https://www.quotemaster.org/Defence#&gid=1&pid=10
- Big tick: https://ssociologos.com/2012/09/26/solucion-del-test-de-sociologia-5/
No comments:
Post a Comment
We would love to hear your comments. All comments are moderated - so after you have your say, click Publish (bottom left), then you should get a pop up about approval. If it is your first time commenting, you may get a Blogger site request to confirm your name which will be displayed with your comment. Fred or the other writers will do their best to get back to you in a day or two!