Ch 3
Language, argument and interaction
“Violence is what people do when they run out of good
ideas. It’s attractive because it’s simple, it’s direct, it’s almost always
available as an option. When you can’t think of a good rebuttal for your
opponent’s argument, you can always punch them in the face.”1
3.1 Argument and debate : winners and losers
When making a claim, folk ask for time and attention to
their view on an issue. But is the claim stated clearly? What responses are
they looking for? And what do we expect of their claim?
We make claims because we feel we need to. Going by gut feeling, we try
to translate feeling into hard fact. Some present a claim and want acceptance
and support; others seek approval. But what values are thrown into the request?
And what’s the source of those values? Do we identify these nuances when we
share thoughts?
In formal settings, organized arguments will often use selective terms
of discourse supported by their assertions of knowledge and information; in informal
settings, folk can just as effectively use terms that may not be specialized,
but that can be shared and built on.2
We don’t need a formal
occasion or an expert to help us figure out the solutions we need. We are
already working towards that in our everyday conversations!
The issues we encounter are part of our life situation and provide opportunities for hard thinking and thoughtful and reasonable exchanges with others. Some folk may not be up for this, and so we encounter those who seem neither thoughtful nor reasonable. But meaningful progress requires the participation of everyone and their investment of patience, energy and time. It is part of the struggle to make life better for all. We have to talk about what we may not want to! Disagreeable persons and their accompanying personalities are part of the mix that we all belong to. Once we have reached out to others, we’ve done our part. Participation in joint effort cannot be forced. Hence the need to focus on productive discussion and positive argument i.e. stuff that gets us somewhere!
This is why the key words of ‘inviting’
and ‘allowing’ one another’s perspectives ask us to agree that a claim is
always acceptable as it is; but it is always contestable, because such an openness
respects the authenticity of the other person! We begin well when we invite
others to put their notions and ideas on the table, amongst a gathering of
equals. The invitation to participate and to listen to another side is always
an opportunity to share in the mutual investment that we are trying to make. Our
daily encounters and conversations provide opportunities to share and examine
the thinking and the claims that dominate the issues. Such sharing can help us
work towards building reasonable foundations.
The historical practice of argument grew
out of such origins, always manifesting a combative and even aggressive
character. One side wins, the other side loses.4
Winners enjoyed benefits while losers got nothing and were laughed at. And participants
or ‘combatants’ were very often unable to recognize mutual objectives, interests
and consequences. Division would always reign.
Why have we allowed such styles and ‘traditions’ to continue? Our
ability to listen with empathy and our willingness to work together are easily
lost when we think in such ways. While arguments emerge out of our need to
resolve issues that affect community, a win/lose mentality sets us up for
situations of intense polarity. Individual perspectives quickly become ‘our
side versus their side’, and opportunities for collaboration are ignored. A cause
requires that we are to be issue oriented. We must be able to see the big
picture and argue for the most productive action.
We may have inherited the style of
incumbent versus opposition, but some inheritances are not worth much and perpetuate
power struggles rooted in vested interests. We need a process of questioning
and of being questioned, of sharing doubts and weaknesses, of working together
in a search for mutually beneficial conclusions. We need to move away from
archaic and destructive forms that encourage competition, vested interests,
manipulation, and even deceit.5
As mutual understanding improves, we can
reach levels of commitment that build cohesion. The useful pragmatic argument
clarifies and justifies the best thinking and the most effective actions.
Clearly framed, such an argument will show what we need to work on, even if we
don’t get it right. The effectively constructed argument, even when it fails,
will serve to plant a seed, or create a shift in a listener’s mind.
While historical practices may have shaped
how we approach the reality of argument, the need for rationality and mutual
understanding remains central to resolving modern conflict and building
community. In the context of an argument, being rational is more than being
factual, logical, or intelligent. Rationality requires reflection, reasoning,
and a self-control that includes the willingness to be accommodating.6 It is an aspect of shared control in
an experience of shared competence – first in mutual discovery in investigation
and exploration, and then in going forward together. It is the courage and
integrity of keeping an open mind and the willingness to change it as needed.
Such willingness is more of a strength than a weakness.
And we don’t need preconceived authoritarian
conclusions. We need to gather information from research, observation, and
experience. Then we can reason our way to a conclusion. And in that process,
test our own reasoning and look for evidence that might contradict our
position. Such an approach requires flexibility, confidence, self-awareness and
an open mind with a willingness to grow. When evidence contradicts a position,
or when reasoning is flawed, it is time to re-examine and possibly change that
position. But if we are invested in said position, such change may not be easy.
It will come at a cost, and we may be unwilling to pay up. Our interests almost
always take first place, and the way ahead is usually a predetermined
conclusion. There is only ‘my’ individual greater good, at the expense of
community wellbeing. It’s plain old-fashioned selfishness. And as events become
contentious, folk shy away from participating and limit their interactions.
We must always challenge our motives and
reasoning, and seek to identify and question our assumptions, our inconsistencies,
and our contradictions, without fear of the consequences. This doesn’t come
easily. Hard thinking of this sort needs disciplined effort – a sharp focus of consistent
effort and integrity. And it cannot be based on feeling. When such thinking is
not present, or when it fails, the entire process easily becomes a theatrical
presentation or ‘wayang.7
Then opinions are offered in place of rational argument. And the more
comfortable we are with a specialized area and its terms of discourse, the
easier it is to make an opinion sound like informed rational thinking! Everyone
has an opinion. But how does the accuracy of the source and the strength of the
argument rate?
Engaging in argument effectively also
requires a good degree of self-understanding. This comes at us both ways, when
folk agree with us and when they don’t. Being a good listener is important to
the work of effective discussion. Some are quick to judge and may be closed-minded,
aggressive, even abusive. They won’t achieve much for community. But the
honest, considerate, open-minded, and confident person is able to engender
trust. And a request for trust can only be justified by the actions that
precede such a request. That which will be dependable and trustworthy is that
which has proved to be dependable and trustworthy. Otherwise, it may often come
down to no more than bad investment and ambiguous hope.
We meet people, we build networks, we
discuss work related issues, we create impressions. How we come across, through
our self-understanding and self-presentation, can make all the difference.
Argument is part of the lifeblood of human community. We create discussions and
participate in arguments to determine solutions to all areas of our lives, from
the conceptual notions that challenge us to the pragmatic issues of
professional and family life and the many circumstantial issues therein. And as
our world becomes increasingly complicated, we must understand the value of
both the conceptual notion and the pragmatic response. We cannot afford leaders
who are one-dimensional adventurers.8
Aspects of culture and ethnicity that
appear different from ‘ours’ may appear hard to understand, but they are of
great value to the folk of that aspect. In societies of diverse cultures and
religions, we must respect and seek to understand the views of others. Only
from such a position can we develop amiable and civil ways of working towards
common needs and values. Then, in sound and fair discussion, we can reach an
understanding of where the current limits are, and of the goals we need to
address. From such a perspective, argument is an essential tool for maintaining
the fabric of any society that both accepts and celebrates its diversity, which
is part of what it means to be human.
Look at the following:
Youth who watch lots of violent entertainment tend to
adopt violent lifestyle responses because
they slowly lose their ability to distinguish between reality and fiction.
The claim is underlined, the reason is italicized. But turn
the structured positions around and the focus shifts...
Violence on television and in video games should be
moderated because youth who watch
lots of violent entertainment tend to use violence in their lifestyle
responses.10
While we all make claims and have reasons, the narrative we
end up using emerges out of our motivation, our perspective and the structure
we use. It comes down to
i.the story we want to tell
ii.the action or concept we are proposing,
iii. what or whom we intend to present and argue for as the
main actor, the main cause, or the dominant reason!
An argument aims to address the
‘how to fix it’ of a life situation that we want to resolve. When people talk
about notions, ideas, concepts, philosophies and policies, they always sound impressive.
But giving something a name only serves to identify it. That’s all. A
resolution is needed. The key questions we must pursue are: What is the
end-result? Is it beneficial?
In any socio-political context,
argument quickly becomes a dangerous game when the people in authority define
criticism of their actions as a threat to national wellbeing and harmony. That’s
a very old ploy, but it’s still being used today! Declaring an emergency can be
very convenient for political leadership. The weaknesses of those whom
criticism is levelled at suddenly becomes the town, the city, the nation’s weakness
and vulnerability. Neat projection. Any
discourse thus identified becomes a threat that is real and dangerous, except
that neither threat nor danger exists. Just a possibility. Maybe. Or an
imagined one. And where an issue is not separated from a person, the person is responsible?
As with a man holding a poster with a smiley face emoticon on it that says
‘save the innocent!’ or something to that effect?11
No. We must know when to call a spade a spade, and
when to call the elephant holding the spade an elephant. Or a donkey. Such is
the courage, intelligence, and determination that personal integrity requires
of each of us. With every sentence we write, we decide what to use as the
subject. In doing so, we choose that which is to be the main character of the
sentence, thereby presenting to our readers and our audience our point of view
– the story as I see it - through everything we think, write and say.
Look at the following pairs, noting that both have the same
referent:
- Free
speech has strengthened democracy throughout history.
- History
teaches us that democracy grows stronger through free speech.12
- Ah Ter
defrauded the bank in the Pork Shoulder Affair by using a document
prepared by Ah Siao.
- Ah
Siao prepared a document that Ah Ter used to defraud the bank
in the Pork Shoulder Affair.13
The sentences represent the same facts, but each one has
assigned responsibility to a different character, providing us with a different
point of view about who’s responsible. Note how marvelously the concept of
active and passive voice in English grammar has always had a political reach! A
similar take:
- Reporters
grilled the Ang Sa Li Mayor until they finally got the information that
they sought: Companies owned by friends who had contracts with the town
had contributed more than $100,000 to his campaign.
- The Ang
Sa Li Mayor was grilled by reporters until he finally admitted to what he
had tried not to reveal: he had accepted more than $100,000 in campaign
contributions from friends’ companies that had contracts with the town.
Note that the first sentence
focuses on the Press, while the second focuses on the Mayor.14 And which is the true statement?
Both. The presentation differs because word order has shifted and a different
subject occupies the topic position. And this is how the message is received!
This is the logic behind placement and structure! It is not our reservoir of
words nor our use of popular phrases and words like “in terms of” and
“sustainable” that makes our writing effective. It’s our control of
structure. The topic position is the first item a reader sees in a sentence
– and the character or theme holding that position takes the role of subject
and chief actor. As topic shifts occur, the reader is led to new
conclusions.
The words we use in conversation are
instinctive and reflect the values we hold. We use them in discussion and
argument to share what we feel about something. Their choice is determined by
our individual identity, which carries both cultural, accepted and learned
values. Human personality is the sum of many factors, and it is never value
free. The claim to be neutral - to be neither for nor against a position or an
issue, is disingenuous. It exhibits a clear value - that of intentional
disengagement. And that is neither a caring nor an involved option. It is more
a refusal to get involved. As has been said – always take sides. Neutrality helps
the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the
tormented.15 This is why
accommodation towards a person or a cause must always be tempered. If not, it
too easily becomes assent.
When a vote is taken – if we are not there in order to avoid showing
where our loyalties lie - what is it that we did not want to face or reveal?
Feelings invoke values, and they color and shape position and argument. And in
any argument, it is never enough to be able to argue ‘well’. What are we
arguing for? And whom are we arguing against? And in both cases, why? What are
the motives and the interests on both sides? We must discipline ourselves to
listen so that we understand what the other party is saying and why. Then, our
responses may move towards resolution!
Can we take the value laden language out
of an argument? We can try. But then we also become deceptive and manipulative,
hiding our true feelings and our real agenda from our readers and listeners. We
may seek to come across as neutral, but what do we really intend? What are we
really for or against? Integrity requires that we state what the position is
and where it comes from, acknowledging potential flaws and possible weaknesses.
A win-win solution may seem like a wonderful achievement, an attempt to move
away from win/lose thinking. But it is often nothing more than a compromise,
and a compromise is never a lasting solution.
When we frame an issue, we hope to
get others to accept it. If they do, we might be halfway through to the result
we want and maybe we can avoid getting into polarized camps. If not, we end up
with two different sides, discussing the same issue from different perspectives
and values. Same referent, different conclusions. Consider:
The real danger of emotion lies in its inherent
ability to cloud judgement, making it harder to think clearly and objectively.
It gives energy for motivation, without doubt. But motivation can be suspect.
Emotion can be like alcohol, and it can cloud the brain and affect our
responses. It may promote relaxed ‘good feelings’, or even inspire passion, but
it can equally promote poor judgement, unless carefully controlled. The
emotionally based argument is always convinced of its ‘rightness’ and ‘accuracy’
by the degree of feeling that it possesses. It seeks to share this conviction.
And then, there will always be the use of
polarizing language, where the terms we use in describing the other position
are always cast in negative phrasing. We will present our views as being
sincere, normal and reasoned, implying that those who disagree with us are
cynical, abnormal, even irrational. And with that approach, the other side of
any argument is quickly characterized - with the others always being either
liberals or conservatives, liars, extremists, radicals, corrupted,
hypocritical, and if need be, sinful! We, on the other hand, are pioneers with
vision, morals and integrity, dedicated to principles of truth and courage, and
all the good stuff!
What’s happened here? We’ve demonized the
opposition! It’s nothing but a ‘how dare you disagree with me?’ So it gets
intentionally characterized as a matter of ‘good guys vs bad guys’! Cowboys and Indians? Cat Stevens (now Yusof
Islam) singing ‘I’m Gonna Get Me A Gun, I don’t want people to put me down, you
better get ready to run….17 Like the words that the song
shares, working together towards peaceful resolution has been going downhill for
a long time. And Cat Stevens doesn’t seem to have a single violent bone in him,
as evidenced by his poetry, his music and his philosophy of life!’ But he was
perhaps reflecting on what he was seeing and experiencing. These days it even
amounts to thinking that if I can make the other side look bad, I’ve already won
half the battle. And what happens when leaders start thinking that they can lie
their way through a process, consequences be damned?
Intense feeling and value laden language can
undermine sound thinking, and even betray the ethical duty that a writer owes
readers, or a speaker owes an audience. We need to look sharply at methods that
appeal to feelings. The side effect of such methods is that we begin to
distrust socio-political discourse, where language aimed at discrediting both
reader and audience ends up negating how we might work out an issue! What can
we do?
Well, for starters, we can give some
consideration to constructive imperatives like Rapoport’s Rules.18 The
first three ‘rules’ seek to engender trust in approaching the other party. The
final one builds on these and is the opportunity to address the position of the
other side. Essentially, what Rapoport suggests is that arguments can be an
opportunity to build trust, even in the face of disagreement, by affirming
the other’s position before uttering a word of criticism. Doing so helps
build the trust necessary to make arguments productive, whether or not
agreement is reached.
this shows that you take them and
their ideas seriously.
2. Point out what you have learned
from the other side’s position;
seek to affirm something that is
not trivial, that you find meaningful.
3. List the points on which both
parties agree.
Points of agreement defuse the
situation, bring the tension down, reduce the ‘winner takes all’ mentality.
4. Having gotten through these
stages, it is now possible to offer a counterpoint, a critique, a refutation.
1.Is about the effort of getting
the other position right; in doing so, we show that we respect them enough to
do this; we take where they are coming from seriously, and want to assure them
that we understand what it means to them; so, before stating your case, you
show that you understand the other side’s case as they see it; and if you get
it right they will tell you so.
Interestingly enough, other
sources have added a little more, in their own presentation of Rapoport’s
ideas. Open to Debate, originally
called Intelligence Squared US Debates, has abandoned the win/lose construct
because it hinders the mission of promoting dialogue.19
Others, from professional
negotiators to academics, have noted that articulating what the other side
feels is transformative for the parties involved in the negotiation process;
and that one-sided resentment is not conducive to ongoing long-term relationships.
Lincoln believed that you succeed (in
a democracy) when you treat others as friends and not as enemies: “If you would
win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is
the great high road to his reason.”
The effort made here is not so much to support or substantiate the
other’s position as it is that of stating your recognition of the value of the
person behind the position. And we can add in the Greater Good (U Cal,
Berkeley) piece which says that trust engendered results in an oxytocin ‘feel
good’ experience i.e. the more trust is shown to you the more of an oxytocin
rush you get. 20 Interesting. Perhaps the assumption in
applying this comes down to our wanting to do ‘feel good’ actions; except that
there is the other side of feel good – when it comes from the revenge quarter;
and is not the least concerned about oxytocin because it runs off a different
source.
I’m sure readers
will have different responses to all this. What it means is that until we learn
how to think and feel as the other person, we will continue to impose our
judgements on them; and peace between persons, groups, ethnicities, nations –
will continue to be an illusion. Thus far, conflict is still very much a part
of the human condition, and a hefty challenge for our children’s children.
3.5 Practical and conceptual
problems
In conversational argument there
are three perspectives that identify and shape the discussion of a problem.21 There are conceptual problems,
pragmatic problems, and a combination that involves conceptual-pragmatic
problems. We face the small ones everyday, like an unexpected work issue that
requires rearranging the evening and finding someone to pick up the little one.
Then the problems grow: finding a good tutor for the child who needs help with
schoolwork; or falling profits in a family business; and then come the
life-threatening ones that create dark clouds that follow you. Health issues
that don’t seem to have easy or effective resolution. Marriage difficulties
that will disrupt the lives of the family …and take your time and energy every
day. And the effect of all these? The more serious they are, the more they
leave us frustrated, anxious, fearful, discouraged, and depressed.
We solve a pragmatic problem only
when a cause-and-effect link is broken. And that is how the argument should be
structured – it must attack and break the chain of causality. And not attack
the people involved. We may have different perspectives on every condition and
issue, but we must frame the argument to support the solution we are pursuing.
Consider:
Every pragmatic problem has two
parts, and sometimes, even more. Search, discover, identify. Then determine an
order that works for you. That order will consist of
- an
event, condition or set of circumstances that have destabilized your life
situation. (eg.
you’ve lost your job, and you
are now in transitional distress)
- a destabilizing condition i.e.
one that affects you or someone you care about, and leaves you mentally depressed,
emotionally weak. It brings you down. This is the cost of the problem. Then
you must ask, what’s the dollar cost of such a situation - one in which
you’re steadily losing self-worth and suffering increased mental,
emotional and physical stress?? What will it cost to maintain your health?
When you create a structure, ensure that this format is
clear. Identify the problem, its cause, and the resulting condition. Then
describe and quantify the final end-result. That result always carries a cost.
How to calculate that cost? Describe, evaluate, measure i.e. quantify. Make
sure the end-result is described in measurable terms. The more burdensome the
cost is shown to be , the greater will be the weight and strength of the
argument.
As with:
You break up with your fiancee…..
Result 1: You’re depressed. Leads
into
Result 2: You drink. But then
Result 3: you drive, although you
shouldn’t, and you end up hitting a pedestrian and maiming him for life.
Alamak!23
That’s terrible. What a tragedy! How would you describe the cost – to the
victim, their family, and finally……to yourself? This is how the argument
against drunk driving runs, and the penalties are formulated accordingly.
Now change perspectives and talk about global warming and
its effects. Industrial emissions are creating a hole in the ozone layer. And
less ozone = more ultra-violet light. And ultra-violet light can cause skin
cancer. Oh, I get it. Right…..! More skin cancer means higher health care
costs. That’s going to affect all of us. Yikes! Yup…… and some of us are going
to die. The cost is always measurable. Do the math on it.
Conceptual Problems
A conceptual problem is a question
that needs an answer. It is theoretical, often sounds philosophical, and seems
to have no immediate consequence. But it almost always has consequences, down
the road. Pursuing the question reveals more questions and a need for answers
that have practical application. Sometimes we might have to solve a problem
conceptually before we can go on to its pragmatic aspect. As with
In creating effective argument, we must be able to handle
the conceptual and the pragmatic and use both in sequence. And we must consider
how they differ and how we may construct an argument for each. Finally, we must
first determine and then argue for the cost involved.
Describing a conceptual
problem
Again, we begin by identifying the
destabilizing condition and its cost. It’s a question raised because a
conclusion doesn’t seem to add up. And it leaves you wondering. But the cost
seems annoyingly intangible. You can’t determine it because of a gap in your
knowledge. Because of this unknown factor, the end-result is commonly referred
to as a consequence. And we don’t know exactly what that will cost us because
we have not been able to quantify it.
There are two questions that are important here:
- You have a situation or a
condition, but a piece of information is missing in your understanding of
it.
- You have no real sense of
what consequence and cost might be.
The question really is, what larger issue does this
situation connect to? When we consider an issue that involves a concept, we
should start by examining the history of interpretation of the events that
describe and involve that concept - where it began, how it began, what it meant
at the time, what motive and intent was involved, and how that meaning has
changed over time. This approach pays dividends.
It’s like starting with a text like The
Dynamics of One-Party Dominance, written back in 1976, by a Singaporean writing
for Singaporeans.24 If you
pursue it, the train of thought that you take will get you back to the
conditions that enabled a fledgling political entity to claim democratic
character, system and form, while justifying the use of differing variables.
Then research the terms of political discourse at that time and what they
meant. Is the concept of democracy ambiguous? No, it’s not. Was there a social
compact or contract? Not really. Ok. Then how do terms of discourse work to
create change for the better? There are conceptual issues here. Engage in
search and discovery, on the notion of democracy in a small East Asian
historically colonial state. How is it to be a democratic entity? What is
needed to develop and maintain its political integrity? How will fair and
effective public policy be created? Where and what are the cutoffs? What is to prevent the stated rule of law
from being applied as rule by law? And what really happened, or began to
happen, back then? All of this requires research, hard thinking and a strong
focus on accurate interpretation that must be worked out in detail and with
clarity.
Or consider the question of how ethnicity
has been determined by identity card protocols? In a mixed marriage, the
paternal side predetermines ethnicity, and the maternal side is discounted.
Why? No one has ever asked, much less complained about it. Perhaps no one
thought about it until recently, when it became an issue of selective
Presidential ethnicity, over a candidate that was more Indian than Malay, but
was ‘officially identified’ against the norm. (see Ch 11 on this!) What is
important is thinking through the issue in its entirety, not just on a single
aspect that currently applies. And when you consider the history of it, there
have been many Muslim converts who have retained their ethnic and cultural
identity, especially with non-Muslim men who have married Malay/Muslim women,
and so converted to Islam, just as non-Catholic men have converted pre-marriage
to Catholicism! And the implications?
Pragmatic problems require working
solutions, but knee jerk responses are often treated as acceptable. As such, it
is also easy for a pragmatic approach to shift position according to the
problem presented, with the pseudo-logic of ‘if it works, it’s okay.’ The
long-term result remains in a conceptual and often nebulous world – yet to be
thought through! And possibly very dangerous in the long term. And the cost?
Take the example
of drunk driving, mentioned earlier. A costly problem. How do we deal with it?
It often starts with fun (thank God it’s Friday…) then crosses the line into
risky behavior and finally bottoms out when someone gets hurt. What statistics
do we have on this issue? Over what period of time? How recent? And out of
these, which incidents would we choose as effective examples that demonstrate
the condition and its costs?
In conceptual problems, both condition and consequence are
unclear. We need to spell them out. Take the example of online classes:
Online classes may sound great,
but to what degree do they deliver? Can we learn effectively without being part
of a physically present group, where point and counterpoint, interpersonal
dynamics and body language challenge us to new perspectives? And if we can,
what happens when we reach a level of diminishing returns? On the other hand,
those who are shy or lack confidence are now set free from the social
competitiveness generated by their colleagues and classmates and may now
respond with alacrity. While it is true that my take on any issue always
results from the sum of my experience and the accumulated knowledge bank that I
have, in practice, it is also a matter of how comfortable I need to feel before
I am able to present it.
Finally, in any argument, written or
otherwise, resist using pejorative terms, no matter how justifiable they might
seem. Focus on the issue, never on the person. It is an opinion, and it does
not necessarily constitute identity. At least, it does not have to. Some will
disagree and hold on to a ‘your opinion is you’ approach, arguing that these
are aspects that cannot be separated. But they can be. Or there is no hope for
personal growth, ever. We grow, and as we grow, we change. It is easy when you
are talking in written form to someone whom you know personally. You know what
you mean, and they know what you mean. When you attempt to engage someone whom
you’ve never met, the rules of the game are not the same. You can easily be
misunderstood. Or vice versa, taking offence for no reason. You just didn’t get
what the other writer or speaker meant. So, thinking about what you want to say
and how you are going to say it goes a long way. And in an increasingly
polarized world, the ability to engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue is
now more important than ever. By moving beyond win-lose mentalities and
embracing rationality and empathy, we can build stronger communities and find
solutions to the challenges we face.
No comments:
Post a Comment