Cold Morning Musings on "How We Argue"
As many who read this blog know, leaving Christianity was not easy. It was the lens through which I saw the world, myself and the people around me. It granted a sense of purpose and belonging.
I knew who the good guys were and the people that were lost. I had a sense of urgency about saving their souls. I could not understand why people were rejecting what was so obviously the truth.
The level of certainty and devotion I had made me see anything less than that as ignorance and something my divine lord had commanded I dispell with the light of his word. When I preached and people seemed indifferent or asked questions showing skepticism, I would feel a discomfort. A sense of being attacked. I was being challenged and I felt like I needed to respond to this evil with strength.
Looking back from this side of things , I realize a couple of things which ring true to idealogical, political discourse today. I had come to identify myself with the ideas I was fighting for. So someone questioning Christianity was in essence questioning my sense of identity.
Similarly I think this is what is happening now with discourse especially under the auspices of public debate. Each side stakes their claim, hurls missives, clap backs and destroys strawmen all in a bid to defend their views and their sense of self.
I argue that this is dangerous and doesn't result in changed minds but rather coercion and silencing of dissent. People stop engaging on line but vote, take action in their lives that still underscores what they believe. They will publicly say the "right thing" and do what they believe later.
I think we can do better though.
Now I cannot argue that defining one' s sense of self by an idealogy is totally wrong. No. After all, I define myself as a humanist and committed to the socratic method. However I do think we need to watch for the intolerance that can creep up when our world is only seen through one lens and when exposed to others' we ascribe terrible narratives upon them. We give ourselves the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of our opponent.
As such I have noticed these four things becoming more and more common and I believe, like it did to me as a Christian, it blinded me to how others saw the world and what impact my style of engagement was having on them
Assuming intention
When someone disagrees or shows misunderstanding, typically its best to deal with it at face value unless you have strong evidence. However often, when we say things like "You're just trolling" or "You're being deliberately annoying", it discards discourse. This should seldom be whipped out. Imagine you were dismissed this way... I don't think your mind would be changed.
Arguing the identity /group
Hunan beings are tribal. And this goes beyond tribes. In conversation, we sometimes see people being forced to either answer for or take responsibility for whatever group they share characteristics with-race, gender, socio economic status etc. The irony is this is also a time of intersectionality-the idea that no one is a single issue or single tribe member. The ultimate result, the ultimate minority then is the individual, for whom various societal, natural and political factors as well as personal choices have forged. Unless they hold themselves out as representative of a group, its best to treat that individual as an individual. In much the same way we'd want
Aschewing criticism.
This is something we're all guilty of. We say it's important to take criticism but often we cry hypocrisy or illegitimacy when critiqued by people we'e
disregarded as credible. However, hypocrisy doesn's destroy the validity of criticism. It may be hypocrital for an art thief to call someone a thief for stealing a car, but the person that stolen the car is a thief.
It's important always to address the issue and not just the character of the person we'e
debating. To do that is to fail to do better with our arguments and learn.
Accepting silence as victory.
It's satisfying to shut someone down. To receive thousands of Retweets and shares after smacking down a troll. But it's important to look at your goals here. Did you want to win a war of words or make a compelling case that would be a first step towards changing minds?
It' s important then to look at our goals. Sure , at times you just need to state your pont and correct something. But I do think if it's to engage; conversation and the rules that given that can more adequately provide basis for true dialogue... In which both parties are open to change.
I knew who the good guys were and the people that were lost. I had a sense of urgency about saving their souls. I could not understand why people were rejecting what was so obviously the truth.
The level of certainty and devotion I had made me see anything less than that as ignorance and something my divine lord had commanded I dispell with the light of his word. When I preached and people seemed indifferent or asked questions showing skepticism, I would feel a discomfort. A sense of being attacked. I was being challenged and I felt like I needed to respond to this evil with strength.
Looking back from this side of things , I realize a couple of things which ring true to idealogical, political discourse today. I had come to identify myself with the ideas I was fighting for. So someone questioning Christianity was in essence questioning my sense of identity.
Similarly I think this is what is happening now with discourse especially under the auspices of public debate. Each side stakes their claim, hurls missives, clap backs and destroys strawmen all in a bid to defend their views and their sense of self.
I argue that this is dangerous and doesn't result in changed minds but rather coercion and silencing of dissent. People stop engaging on line but vote, take action in their lives that still underscores what they believe. They will publicly say the "right thing" and do what they believe later.
I think we can do better though.
Now I cannot argue that defining one' s sense of self by an idealogy is totally wrong. No. After all, I define myself as a humanist and committed to the socratic method. However I do think we need to watch for the intolerance that can creep up when our world is only seen through one lens and when exposed to others' we ascribe terrible narratives upon them. We give ourselves the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of our opponent.
As such I have noticed these four things becoming more and more common and I believe, like it did to me as a Christian, it blinded me to how others saw the world and what impact my style of engagement was having on them
Assuming intention
When someone disagrees or shows misunderstanding, typically its best to deal with it at face value unless you have strong evidence. However often, when we say things like "You're just trolling" or "You're being deliberately annoying", it discards discourse. This should seldom be whipped out. Imagine you were dismissed this way... I don't think your mind would be changed.
Arguing the identity /group
Hunan beings are tribal. And this goes beyond tribes. In conversation, we sometimes see people being forced to either answer for or take responsibility for whatever group they share characteristics with-race, gender, socio economic status etc. The irony is this is also a time of intersectionality-the idea that no one is a single issue or single tribe member. The ultimate result, the ultimate minority then is the individual, for whom various societal, natural and political factors as well as personal choices have forged. Unless they hold themselves out as representative of a group, its best to treat that individual as an individual. In much the same way we'd want
Aschewing criticism.
This is something we're all guilty of. We say it's important to take criticism but often we cry hypocrisy or illegitimacy when critiqued by people we'e
disregarded as credible. However, hypocrisy doesn's destroy the validity of criticism. It may be hypocrital for an art thief to call someone a thief for stealing a car, but the person that stolen the car is a thief.
It's important always to address the issue and not just the character of the person we'e
debating. To do that is to fail to do better with our arguments and learn.
Accepting silence as victory.
It's satisfying to shut someone down. To receive thousands of Retweets and shares after smacking down a troll. But it's important to look at your goals here. Did you want to win a war of words or make a compelling case that would be a first step towards changing minds?
It' s important then to look at our goals. Sure , at times you just need to state your pont and correct something. But I do think if it's to engage; conversation and the rules that given that can more adequately provide basis for true dialogue... In which both parties are open to change.
Comments