THE

ALSO BY DEBORAH TANNEN

General Interest

Talkingfrom 9 to 5:
ARGUMENT
Womenand Men in the Workplace:Language,Sex, and PrruJer

YouJust Don't Understand·

Womenand Men in Conversation
CULTURE
That'sNot WhatI Meant.- STOPPING AMERICA'S WAR OF WORDS
I-lowConversational
StyleMakes or BreaksRelationships

Scholarly Interest

Genderand Discourse

Talking Voices: DEBORAH TANNEN, PH.D.

Repetition,Dialogue,and Imageryin Conversational
Discourse

ConversationalStyle:
Analyzing Talk AmongFriends

lilika Nakos
(Twayne World Authors Series)

BALLANTINE BOOKS NEW YORK

 Sale of this book without a front cover may by unauthorized. If this book is coverless, it may To
have been reported to the publisher as "unsold or destroyed" and neither the author nor the
Miriam Tannen
publisher may have received payment for it.
and
A Ballantine Book Naomi Tannen
Published by The Ballantine Publishing Group
my sisters in every sense of the word
Copyright© 1998 by Deborah Tannen
Reader's Companion copyright© 1999 by The Ballantine Publishing Group,
a division of Random House, Inc.

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the
United States by The Ballantine Puhlishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York,
and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto.

Ballantine and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc.

Owing co space limitations, all acknowledgments of permission to reprint material

are on pages 347-348, which constitute an extension of the copyright page.

www.randomhouse.com/BB/

Library of Congress Catalog Card ~um her: 98-96662

ISBN: 0-345-40751-2

This edition published by arrangement with Random House, Inc.

Cover design by Ruth Ross

Manufactured in the Llnited States of America

First Ballantine Books Edition: February 1999

10987654321
 THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE 257

views would not dare to do so because it would look like a "cop-out,"

an inability to take a stand.
One reason so many teachers use the debate format to promote
student involvement is that it is relatively easy to set up and the re-
wards are quick and obvious: the decibel level of noise, the excite-
ment of those who are taking part. Showing students how to integrate
9 ideas and explore subtleties and complexities is much harder. And the
rewards are quieter-but more lasting.
THE ROOTS OF DEBATE IN EDUCATION Our schools and universities, our ways of doing science and ap-
proaching knowledge, are deeply agonistic. We all pass through our
AND THE HOPE OF DIALOGUE country's educational system, and it is there that the seeds of our ad-
versarial culture are planted. Seeing how these seeds develop, and
, where they came from, is a key to understanding the argument cul-
ture and a necessary foundation for determining what changes we
would like to make.

ROOTS OF THE ADVERSARIAL

APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE

The teacher sits at the head of the classroom, feeling pleased with The argument culture, with its tendency to approach issues as a po-
herself and her class. The students are engaged in a heated debate. larized debate, and the culture of critique, with its inclination to re-
The very noise level reassures the teacher that the students are par- gard criticism and attack as the best if not the only type of rigorous
ticipating, taking responsibility for their own learning. Education is thinking, are deeply rooted in Western tradition, going back to the an-
going on. The class is a success. cient Greeks. This point is made by Walter Ong, a Jesuit professor at
· But look again, cautions Patricia Rosof, a high school history Saint Louis University, in his book Fighting/or Life.Ong credits the an-
teacher who admits to having experienced that wave of satisfaction cient Greeks with a fascination with adversativeness in language and
with herself and the job she is doing. On closer inspection, you notice thought. He also connects the adversarial tradition of educational in-
that only a few students are participating in the debate; the majority stitutions to their all-male character. To attend the earliest universi-
of the class is sitting silently, maybe attentive but perhaps either in- ties, in the Middle Ages, young men were torn from their families and
different or actively turned off And the students who are arguing are , deposited in cloistered environments where corporal, even brutal,
not addressing the subtleties, nuances, or complexities of the points punishment was rampant. Their suffering drove them to bond with
they are making or disputing. They do not have that luxury because each other in opposition to their keepers-the teachers who were
they want to win the argument-so they must go for the most gross their symbolic enemies. Similar in many ways to puberty rites in tra-
and dramatic statements they can muster. They will not concede an ditional cultures, this secret society to which young men were con-
opponent's point, even if they can see its validity, because that would fined also had a private language, Latin, in which students read about
weaken their position. Anyone tempted to synthesize the varying military exploits. Knowledge was gleaned through public oral dispu-
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE
259
tation and tested by combative oral performance, which carried with women, and generally creating mayhem. Noble traces the history of
it the risk of public humiliation. Students at these institutions were Western science and of universities to joint origins in the Christian
trained not to discover the truth but to argue either side of an argu- Church. The scientific revolution, he shows, was created by reli-
ment-in other words, to debate. Ong points out that the Latin term gious devotees setting up monastery-like institutions devoted to
for school, ludus,also referred to play or games, but it derived from the learning. Early universities were seminaries, and early scientists
military sense of the word-training exercises for war. were either clergy or devoutly religious individuals who led monk-
If debate seems self-evidently the appropriate or even the only like lives. (Until as recently as 1888, fellows at Oxford were ex-
path to insight and knowledge, says Ong, consider the Chinese ap- pected to be unmarried.)
proach. Disputation was rejected in ancient China as "incompatible That Western science is rooted in the Christian Church helps ex-
with the decorum and harmony cultivated by the true sage." During plain why our approach to knowledge tends to be conceived as a
the Classical periods in both China and India, according to Robert T. metaphorical battle: The Christian Church, Noble shows, has origins
Oliver, the preferred mode of rhetoric was exposition rather than ar- and early forms rooted in the military. Many early monks had actu-
gument. The aim was to "enlighten an inquirer," not to "overwhelm ally been soldiers before becoming monks. Not only were obedience
an opponent." And the preferred style reflected "the earnestness of ,/ and strict military-like discipline required, but monks saw themselves
investigation" rather than "the fervor of conviction." In contrast to as serving "in God's knighthood," warriors in a battle against evil. In
Aristotle's trust of logic and mistrust of emotion, in ancient Asia in- later centuries, the Crusades brought actual warrior-monks.
tuitive insight was considered the superior means of perceiving truth. The history of science in the Church holds the key to understand-
Asian rhetoric was devoted not to devising logical arguments but to ing our tradition of regarding the search for truth as an enterprise of
explicating widely accepted propositions. Furthermore, the search oral disputation in which positions are propounded, defended, and at-
for abstract truth that we assume is the goal of philosophy, while tacked without regard to the debater's personal conviction. Ttis a no-
taken for granted in the West, was not found in the East, where phi- tion of truth as objective, best captured by formal logic, that Ong
losophy was concerned with observation and experience. traces to Aristotle. Aristotle regarded logic as the only trustworthy
If Aristotelian philosophy, with its emphasis on formal logic, was means for human judgment; emotions get in the way: "The man who
based on the assumption that truth is gained by opposition, Chinese is to judge would not have his judgment warped by speakers arousing
philosophy offers an alternative view. With its emphasis on harmony; him to anger, jealousy, or compassion. One might as well make a car-
says anthropologist Linda Young, Chinese philosophy sees a diverse penter's tool crooked before using it as a measure."
universe in precarious balance that is maintained by talk. This trans- This assumption explains why Plato wanted to ban poets from ed-
lates into methods of investigation that focus more on integrating ucation in his ideal community. As a lover of poetry, I can still recall
ideas and exploring relations among them than on opposing ideas and my surprise and distress on reading this in The Republicwhen I was in
fighting over them. high school. Not until much later did I understand what it was all
about. Poets in ancient Greece were wandering bards who traveled
from place to place performing oral poetry that persuaded audiences
ONWARD, CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS by moving them emotionally. They were like what we think of as
demagogues: people with a dangerous power to persuade others by
The military-like culture of early universities is also described by getting them all worked up. Ong likens this to our discomfort with ad-
historian David Noble, who describes how young men attending vertising in schools, which we see as places where children should
medieval universities were like marauding soldiers: The students- learn to think logically, not be influenced by "teachers" with ulterior
all seminarians-roamed the streets bearing arms, assaulting motives who use unfair persuasive tactics.
260 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

teacher responded, "That's neat-o. Tell the kids how you do it from
the very start. Pretend we don't know a thing about candles. OK, what
SHARING TIME: EARLY TRAINING IN SCHOOL did you do first? What did you use?" She continued to prompt: "What
makes it have a shape?" and "Who knows what the string is for?" By
A commitment to formal logic as the truest form of intellecrual pur- encouraging Mindy to give information in a sequential manner, even
suit remains with us today. Our glorification of opposition as the path if it might not seem the most important to her and if the children
to truth is related to the development of formal logic, which encour- might already know some of it, the teacher was training her to talk in
ages thinkers to regard truth seeking as a step-by-step alternation of a focused, explicit way.
claims and counterclaims. Truth, in this schema, is an abstract notion The tendency to value formal, objective knowledge over relational,
tliat tends to be taken of context. This formal approach to learning is inruitive knowledge grows out of our notion of education as training
taught in our schools, often indirectly. for debate. It is a legacy of the agonistic heritage. There are many
Educational researcher James Wertsch shows that schools place other traces as well. Many Ph.D. programs still require public "de-
great emphasis on formal representation of knowledge. The common fenses" of dissertations or dissertation proposals, and oral perfor-
elementary school practice of "sharing time" (or, as it used to be mance of knowledge in comprehensive exams. Throughout our
called, "show-and-tell") is a prime arena for such training. Wertsch educational system, the most pervasive inheritance is the conviction
gives the example of a kindergarten pupil named Danny who took a that issues have two sides, that knowledge is best gained through de-
piece of lava to class. Danny told his classmates, "My mom went to the bate, that ideas should be presented orally to an audience that does its
volcano and got it." When the teacher asked what he wanted to tell best to poke holes and find weaknesses, and that to get recognition,
about it, he said, "I've always been taking care of it." This placed the one has to "stake out a position" in opposition to another.
rock at the center of his feelings and his family: the rock's connection
to his mother, who gave it to him, and the attention and care he has lav-
ished on it. The teacher reframed the.children's interest in the rock as INTEGRATING WOMEN IN THE
informational: "Is it rough or smooth?" "Is it heavy or light?" She also CLASSROOM ARMY
suggested they look up "volcano" and "lava" in the dictionary. This is
not to imply that the teacher harmed the child; she built on his per- If Ong is right, the adversarial character of our educational institu-
sonal attachment to the rock to teach him a new way of thinking about tions is inseparable from their all-male heritage. I wondered whether
it. But the example shows the focus of education on formal rather than teaching techniques still tend to be adversarial today and whether, if
relational knowledge-information about the rock that has meaning they are, this may hold a clue to a dilemma that has received much re-
out of context, rather than information tied to the context: Who got cent attention: that girls often receive less attention and speak up less
the rock for him? How did she get it? What is his relation to it? in class. One term I taught a large lecrure class of 140 students and
Here's another example of how a teacher uses sharing time to train decided to take advantage of this army (as it were) of researchers to
children to speak and think formally. Sarah Michaels spent time answer these questions. Becoming observers in their own classrooms,
watching and tape-recording in a first-grade classroom. During shar- my students found plenty of support for Ong's ideas.
ing time, a little girl named Mindy held up two candles and told her I asked the students to note how relatively adversarial the teaching
classmates, "When I was in day camp we made these candles. And I methods were in their other classes and how the srudents responded.
tried it with different colors with both of them but one just came out, Gabrielle DeRouen-Hawkins's description of a theology class was
this one just came out blue and I don't know what this color is." The typical:
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

The class is in the format of lecture with class discussion and partic- ·women's grades suffer because they speak up less, but they might be
ipation. There are thirteen boys and eleven girls in the class. In a evaluated as less intelligent or prepared because when they did speak,
fifty-minute class: they asked questions rather than challenging the readings.
Number of times a male student spoke: 8 I was intrigued by the student's comment" /Smith/ is very vague in
Number of times a female student spoke: 3 her theory of XX. Can you explain it further?" It could have been
... Jn our readings, theologians present their theories surrounding phrased "I didn't understand the author's theory. Can you explain it to
G-D, life, spirituality and sacredness. As the professor (a male) out- me?" By beginning "The author is vague in her theory," the ques-
lined the main ideas about the readings, he posed questions like "And tioner blamed the author for his failure to understand. A student who
what is the fault with /Smith's/ basis that the sacred is individualis- asks a question in class risks appearing ignorant. Prefacing the ques-
tic?" The only hands that went up were male. Not one female dared tion this way was an excellent way to minimize that risk.
challenge or refute an autho.r'swritings. The only questions that the In her description of this class, Gabrielle wrote that not a single
females asked (and all female comments were questions) involved a woman "dared challenge or refute" an author. She herself underlined
problem they had with the content of the reading. The males, on the the word "dared." But in reading this I wondered whether "dared" was
other hand, openly questioned, criticized, and refuted the readings necessarily the right word. It implies that the women in the class
on fiveseparate occasions.The three other times that males spoke in- wished to challenge the author but did not have the courage. It is pos-
volved them saying something like: "/Smith/ is very vague in her sible that not a single woman caredto challenge the author. Criticizing
theory of XX. Can you explain it further?" They were openly argu- or challenging might not be something that appealed to them or
mentative. seemed worth their efforts. Going back to the childhoods of boys and
girls, it seems possible that the boys had had more experiences, from
This description raises a number of fascinating issues. First, it gives the time they were small, that encouraged them to challenge and
concrete evidence that at least college classrooms proceed on the as- argue with authority figures than the girls had.
sumption that the educational process should be adversarial: The This is not to say that classrooms are more congenial to boys than
teacher invited students to criticize the reading. (Theology, a re- girls in every way. Especially in the lowest grades, the requirement
quired course at Georgetown, was a subject where my students most that children sit quietly in their seats seems clearly to be easier for
often found adversarial methods-interestingly, given the back- girls to fulfill than boys, since many girls frequently sit fairly quietly
ground I laid out earlier.) Again, there is nothing inherently wrong for long periods of time when they play, while most boys' idea of play
with using such methods. Clearly, they are very effective in many involves at least running aro~md, if not also jumping and roughhous-
ways. However, among the potential liabilities is the risk that women ing. And researchers have pointed out that some of the extra attention
students may be less likely to take part in classroom discussions that boys receive is aimed at controlling such physical exuberance. The
are framed as arguments between opposing sides-that is, debate-or adversarial aspect of educational traditions is just one small piece of
as attacks on the authors-that is, critique. (The vast majority of stu- the pie, but it seems to reflect boys' experiences and predilections
dents' observations revealed that men tended to speak more than more than girls'.
women in their classes-which is not to say that individual women A colleague commented that he had always taken for granted that
did not speak more than individual men.) the best way to deal with students' comments is to challenge them; he
Gabrielle commented that since class participation counted for 10 took it to be self-evident that this technique sharpens their minds and
percent of students' grades, it might not be fair to women students helps them develop debating skills. But he noticed that women were
that the agonistic style is more congenial to men. Not only might relatively silent in his classes. He decided to try beginning discussion
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DtAtOGUE

with relatively open questions and letting comments go unchal- I spent in Germany as an exchange student. The classroom was very
lenged. He found, to his amazement and satisfaction, that more debate-oriented and agonistic. One particular instance I remember
women began to speak up in class. well was in physics class, when a very confrontational friend of mine
Clearly, women can learn to perform in adversarial ways. Anyone had a heated debate with the teacher about solving a problem. My
who doubts this need only attend an academic conference in the field friend ran to the board and scribbled out how he would have solved
of women's studies or feminist studies--or read Duke University the problem, completely different from the teacher's, which also gave
professor Jane Tompkins's essay showing how a conference in these my friend the right answer and made the teacher wrong.
fields can be like a Western shoot-out. My point is rather about the
roots of the tradition and the tendency of the style to appeal initially STUDENT: "You see! This is how it should be, and you are wrong!"
to more men than women in the Western cultural context. Ong and TEACHER: "No! No! No! You are absolutely wrong in every respect!
Noble show that the adversarial culture of Western science and its Just look at how you did this!" (He goes over my friend's
exclusion of women were part and parcel of the same historical solution and shows that it does not work.) "Your solution
roots-not that individual women may not learn to practice and enjoy has no base, as I just showed you!"
agonistic debate or that individual men may not recoil from it. There STUDENT: "You can't prove that. Mine works just as well!"
are many people, women as well as men, who assume a discussion TEACHER: "My God, if the world were full of technical idiots like
must be contentious to be interesting. Author Mary Catherine Bate- yourself! Look again!" (And he clearly shows how my
son recalls that when her mother, the anthropologist Margaret Mead, friend's approach was wrong, after which my friend shut
said, "I had an argument with" someone, it was a positive comment. up.)
"An argument," to her, meant a spirited intellectual interchange, not a
rancorous conflict. The same assumption emerged in an obituary for In Zach's opinion, the teacher encouraged this type of argument. The
Diana Trilling, called "one of the very last of the great midcentury student learned he was wrong, but he got practice in arguing his point
New York intellectuals." She and her friends had tried ro live what of view.
they called "a life of significant contention" -the contention appar- This incident occurred in high school. But European classrooms
ently enhancing rather than undercutting the significance. can be adversarial even at the elementary school level, according to
another student, Megan Smyth, who reported on a videotape she saw
in her French class:
LEARNING BY FIGHTING
Today in French class we watched an excerpt of a classroom scene of
Although there are patterns that tend tO typify women and men in a fifth-graders. One at a time, each student was asked to stand up and
given culture, there is an even greater range among members of recite a poem that they were supposed to have memorized. The
widely divergent cultural backgrounds. In addition to observing ad- teacher screamed at the students if they forgot a line or if they didn't
versarial encounters in their current classrooms, many students speak with enough emotion. They were reprimanded and asked to
recalled having spent a junior year in Germany or France and com- repeat the task until they did it perfectly and passed the "oral test."
mented that American classrooms seemed very placid compared to
what they had experienced abroad. One student, Zach Tyler, de- There is probably little question about how Americans would view
scribed his impressions this way: this way of teaching, but the students put it into words:

I have very vivid memories of my junior year of high school, which After watching this scene, my French teacher asked the class what
"
w ' THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

our opinion was.The various responsesincluded: French schoolsare of weekly symposia attended by faculty and graduate students at a
very strict, the professor was "mean" and didn't have respect for the . major research university. When they asked participants about the
students, and there's too much emphasis on memorization, which is purpose of the symposia, they were told it was to "trade ideas" and
pointless. "learn things." But it didn't take too much discussion to uncover the
participants' deeper concern: to be seen as intellectually competent.
If teaching methods can be more openly adversarial in European than And here's the rub: To be seen as competent, a student had to ask
American elementary and high schools, academic debate can be more "tough and challenging questions."
openly adversarial there as well. For example, Alice Kaplan, a profes- One faculty member commented, when asked about who partici-
sor of French at Duke University, describes a colloquium on the pated actively in a symposium,
French writer Celine that she attended in Paris:
Among the graduate students, the people I think about areJess, Tim,
After the first speech, people started yelling at each other. "Areyou uh let's see, Felicia will ask a question but it'll be a nice little sup-
suggesting that Celine was fascist!""Youcall that evidence!""I will portive question.
not accept ignorance in the place of argument!"I was scared.
"A nice little supportive question" diminished the value of Felicia's
These examples dramatize that many individuals can thrive in an ad- participation and her intelligence--the sort of judgment a student
versarial atmosphere. And those who learn to participate effectively would wish to avoid. Just as with White House correspondents, there
in any verbal game eventually enjoy it, if nothing else than for the is value placed on asking "tough questions." Those who want to im-
pleasure of exercising that learned skill. It is important to keep these press their peers and superiors (as most, ifnot all, do) are motivated
examples in mind in order to avoid the impression that adversarial to ask the sorts of questions that gain approval.
tactics are always destructive. Clearly, such tactics sometimes ad- Valuing attack as a sign of respect is part of the argument culture
mirably serve the purpose of intellectual inquiry. In addition to indi- of academia--our conception of intellectual interchange as a meta-
vidual predilection, cultural learning plays a role in whether or not phorical battle. As one colleague put it, "In order to play with the big
someone enjoys the game played this way. boys, you have to be willing to get into the ring and wrestle with
them." Yet many graduate students (and quite a few established schol-
ars) remain ambivalent about this ethic, especially when they are on
GRADUATE SCHOOL AS BOOT CAMP the receiving rather than the distribution end. Sociolinguist Winnie
Or tape-recorded a symposium at which a graduate student pre-
Although the invective Kaplan heard at a scholarly meeting in Paris is sented her fledgling research to other students and graduate faculty.
more extreme than what is typical at American conferences, the as- The student later told Or that she left the symposium feeling that a
sumption that challenge and attack are the best modes of scholarly truck had rolled over her. She did not say she regretted having taken
inquiry is pervasive in American scholarly communities as well. part; she felt she had received valuable feedback. But she also men-
Graduate education is a training ground not only for teaching but tioned that she had not looked at her research project once since the
also for scientific research. Many graduate programs are geared to symposium several weeks before. This is telling. Shouldn't an oppor-
training young scholars in rigorous thinking, defined as the ability to tunity to discuss your research with peers and experts fire you up and
launch and field verbal attacks. send you back to the isolation of research renewed and reirispired?
Communications researchers Karen Tracy and Sheryl Baratz Isn't something awry if it leaves you not wanting to face your research
tapped into some of the ethics that lead to this atmosphere in a study project at all?
 268 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

This young scholar persevered, but others drop out of graduate disagree with it. Students are taught that they must disprove others'
school, in some cases because they are turned off by the atmosphere arguments in order to be original, make a contribution, and demon-
of critique. One woman who wrote to me said she had been encour- strate their intellectual ability. When there is a need to make others
aged to enroll in graduate school by her college professors, but she wrong, the temptation is great to oversimplify at best, and at worst to
lasted only one year in a major midwest university's doctoral program distort or even misrepresent others' positions, the better to refute
in art history. This is how she described her experience and her deci- them-to search for the most foolish statement in a generally reason-
sion nor to continue: able treatise, seize upon the weakest examples, ignore facts that sup-
port your opponent's views, and focus only on those that support
Grad school was the nightmare I never knew existed.... Imo the yours. Straw men spring up like scarecrows in a cornfield.
den of wolves I go, like a lamb to slaughter.... When, at the end of Sometimes it seems as if there is a maxim driving academic dis-
my first year (masters) I was offered a job as a curator for a private course that counsels, "If you can't find something bad to say, don't say
collection, I jumped at the chance. I wasn't cut out for academia- anything." As a result, any work that gets a lot of attention is immedi-
better try the "real world." ately opposed. There is an advantage to this approach: Weaknesses are
exposed, and that is surely good. But another result is that it is diffi-
Reading this I thought, is it that she was not cut out for academia, or cult for those outside the field (or even inside) to know what is "true."
is it that academia as it was practiced in that university is not cut out Like two expert witnesses hired by opposing attorneys, academics can
for people like her. It is cur out for those who enjoy, or can tolerate, a seem to be canceling each other out. In the words of policy analysts
contentious environment. David Greenberg and Philip Robins:
(These examples remind us again of the gender dynamic. The
graduate student who left academia for museum work was a woman. The process of scientificinquiry almost ensures that competing sets
The student who asked a "nice little supportive question" instead of a of results will be obtained.... Once the first set of findings are pub-
"tough, challenging one" was a woman. More than one commentator lished, other researchers eager to make a name for themselves must
has wondered aloud if part of the reason women drop out of science come up with different approaches and results to get their studies
courses and degree programs is their discomfort with the agonistic published.
culture of Western science. And Lani Guinier has recently shown
that discomfort with the agonistic procedures of law school is partly How are outsiders (or insiders, for that matter) to know which "side"
responsible for women's lower grade point averages in law school, to believe? As a result, it is extremely difficult for research to influ-
since the women arrive at law school with records as strong as the ence public policy.
men's.) A leading researcher in psychology commented that he knew of
two young colleagues who had achieved tenure by writing articles at-
tacking him. One of them told him, in confidence, that he actually
THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE: agreed with him, but of course he could not get tenure by writing ar-
ATTACK IN THE ACADEMY ticles simply supporting someone else's work; he had to stake out a
position in opposition. Attacking an established scholar has particular
I •
. I The standard way of writing an academic paper is to position your appeal because it demonstrates originality and independence of
I I.
., work in opposition to someone else's, which you prove wrong. This thought without requiring true innovation. After all, the domain of
creates a needto make others wrong, which is quite a different matter inquiry and the terms of debate have already been established. The
from reading something with an open mind and discovering that you critic has only to say, like the child who wants to pick a fight, "Is not!"
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

Younger or less prominent scholars can achieve a level of attention "Peer review" is the cornerstone of academic life. When someone
otherwise denied or eluding them by stepping into the ring with · submits an article to a journal, a book to a publisher, or a proposal to
someone who has already attracted the spotlight. a funding institution, the work is sent to established scholars for eval:-
The young psychologist who confessed his motives to the estab- uation. To enable reviewers to be honest, they remain anonymous.
lished one was unusual, I suspect, only in his self-awareness and will- But anonymous reviewers often take a tone of derision such as people
ingness to articulate it. More commonly, younger scholars, or less tend to use only when talking about someone who is not there-after
prominent ones, convince themselves that they are fighting for truth, all, the evaluation is not addressed to the author. But authors typically
that they are among the few who see that the emperor has no clothes. receive copies of the evaluations, especially if their work is rejected.
In the essay mentioned earlier,Jane Tompkins describes how a young This can be particularly destructive to young scholars just starting
scholar-critic can work herself into a passionate conviction that she is out. For example, one sociolinguist wrote her dissertation in a firmly
morally obligated to attack, because she is fighting on the side of good established tradition: She tape-recorded conversations at the com-
against the side of evil. Like the reluctant hero in the film HighNoon, pany where she worked part-time. Experts in our field believe it is
she feels she has no choice but to strap on her holster and shoot. best to examine conversations in which the researcher is a natural
Tompkins recalls that her own career was launched by an essay that participant, because when strangers appear asking to tape-record,
people get nervous and may change their behavior. The publisher
began with a frontal assaulton another woman scholar.When I wrote . sent the manuscript to a reviewer who was used to different research
it I felt the war the hero does in a Western. Not only had this critic methods. In rejecting the proposal, she referred to the young scholar
argued a, b,and c,she had held x,y, and z! It was a clear case of outra- "using the audiotaped detritus from an old job." Ouch. \Vhat could
geous provocation. justify the sneering term "detritus"? What is added by appending
"old" to "job," other than hurting the author? Like Heathcliff, the tar-
Because her attack was aimed at someone with an established ca- get hears only the negative and-like Heathcliff-may respond by
reer ("She was famous and I was not. She was teaching at a prestigious fleeing the field altogether.
university and I was not. She had published a major book and I had One reason the argument culture is so widespread is that arguing is
not."), it was a "David and Goliath situation" that made her feel she so easy to do. Lynne Hewitt, Judith Duchan, and Erwin Segal came
was "justified in hitting her with everything I had." (This is analogous up with a fascinating finding: Speakers with language disabilities who
to what William Satire describes as his philosophy in the sphere of had trouble taking part in other types of verbal interaction were able
political journalism: "Kick'em when they're up.") to participate in arguments. Observing adults with mental retardation
i.
!
The claim of objectivity is belied by Tompkins's account of the who lived in a group home, the researchers found that the residents
spirit in which attack is often launch.ed: the many motivations, other often engaged in verbal conflicts as a means of prolonging interaction.
than the search for truth, that drive a critic to pick a fight with another It was a form of sociability. Most surprising, this was equally true of
scholar. Objectivity would entail a disinterested evaluation of all two residents who had severe language and comprehension disorders
claims. But there is nothing disinterested about it when scholars set yet were able to take part in the verbal disputes, because arguments
our with the need to make others wrong and transform them not only have a predictable structure.
into opponents but into villains. Academics, too, know that it is easy to ask challenging questions
In academia, as in other walks of life, anonymity breeds contempt. without listening, reading, or thinking very carefully. Critics can al-
Some of the nastiest rhetoric shows up in "blind" reviews-of articles ways complain about research methods, sample size, and what has
submitted to journals or book proposals submitted to publishers. been left out To study anything, a researcher must isolate a piece of

I ;
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE
273

the subject and narrow the scope of vision in order to focus. An entire
tree cannot be placed under a microscope; a tiny bit has to be sepa-
rated to be examined closely. This gives critics the handle of a BELIEVING AS THINKING
weapon with which to strike an easy blow: They can point out all the
bits that were not studied. Like family members or partners in a close "The doubting game" is the name English professor Peter Elbow gives
relationship, anyone looking for things to pick on will have no trouble to what educators are trained to do. In playing the doubting game,
finding them. you approach others' work by looking for what's wrong, much as the
All of this is not to imply that scholars should not criticize each press corps follows the president hoping to catch him stumble or an
other or disagree. In the words of poet William Blake, "Without con- attorney pores over an opposing witness's deposition looking for in-
traries is no progression." The point is to distinguish constructive consistencies that can be challenged on the stand. It is an attorney's
ways of doing so from nonconstructive ones. Criticizing a colleague job to discredit opposing witnesses, but is it a scholar's job to approach
on empirical grounds is the beginning of a discussion; if researchers colleagues like an opposing attorney?
come up with different findings, they can engage in a dialogue: What Elbow recommends learning to approach new ideas, and ideas dif-
is it about their methods, data, or means of analysis that explains the ferent from your own, in a different spirit-what he calls a "believing
different results? In some cases, those who set out to disprove an- game." This does not mean accepting everything anyone says or
other's claims end up proving them instead-something that is highly writes in an unthinking way. That would be just as superficial as re-
unlikely to happen in fields that deal in argumentation alone. jecting everything without thinking deeply about it. The believing
A stunning example in which opponents attempting to disprove a game is still a game. It simply asks you to give it a whirl: Read as tfyou
heretical claim ended up proving it involves the cause and treatment believed, and see where it takes you. Then you can go back and ask
of ulcers. It is now widely known and accepted that ulcers are caused whether you want to accept or reject elements in the argument or the
by bacteria in the stomach and can be cured by massive doses of an- whole argument or idea. Elbow is not recommending that we stop
tibiotics. For years, however, the cure and treatment of ulcers re- doubting altogether. He is telling us to stop doubting exclusively. We
mained elusive, as all the experts agreed that ulcers were the classic need a systematic and respected way to detect and expose strengths,
psychogenic illness caused by stress. The stomach, experts further just as we have a systematic and respected way of detecting faults.
agreed, was a sterile environment No bacteria could live there. So Americans need little encourage_ment to play the doubting game
pathologists did not look for bacteria in the stomachs of ailing or de- because we regard it as synonymous with intellectual inquiry, a sign
ceased patients, and those who came across them simply ignored of intelligence. In Elbow's words, "We tend to assume that the ability
them, in effect not seeing what was before their eyes because they did to criticize a claim we disagree with counts as more serious intellec-
not believe it could be there. When Dr. Barry Marshall, an Australian tual work than the ability to enter into it and temporarily assent." It is
resident in internal medicine, presented evidence that ulcers are the believing game that needs to be encouraged and recognized as an
caused by bacteria, no one b.elieved him. His findings were ultimately equally serious intellectual pursuit.
confirmed by researchers intent on proving him wrong. Although criticizing is surely part of critical thinking, it is not syn-
The case of ulcers shows that setting out to prove others wrong can onymous with it. Again, limiting critical response to critique means
be constructive-when it is driven by genuine differences and when it not doing the other kinds of critical thinking that could be helpful:
motivates others to undertake new research. But if seeking to prove looking for new insights, new perspectives, new ways of thinking, new
others wrong becomes a habit, an end in itself, the sole line of inquiry, knowledge. Critiquing relieves you of the responsibility of doing in-
the results can be far less rewarding. tegrative thinking. It also has the advantage of making the critics feel
274 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE
THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE 275

smart, smarter than the ill-fated author whose work is being picked rary feminist theory, which she quickly learned was divided into two
apart like carrion. But it has the disadvantage of making them less warring camps. In one camp are those who focus on the ways that
likely to learn from the author's work. women are different from men. Among these, some emphasize that
women's ways are equally valid and should be respected, while others
' believe that women's ways are superior and should he more widely
THE SOCRATIC METHOD-OR IS IT? adopted. Both these views--called "difference feminism"-contrast
with those in the other camp, who claim that women are no different
Another scholar who questions the usefulness of opposition as the from men by nature, so any noticeable differences result from how so-
sole path to truth is philosopher Janice Moulton. Philosophy, she ciety treats women. Those who take this view are called "social con-
shows, equates logical reasoning with the Adversary Paradigm, a mat- ♦
strucnomsts.
• "

ter of making claims and then trying to find, and argue against, coun- Klein saw that separating feminist theory into these two camps re-
terexamples to that claim. The result is a debate between adversaries flects the Western tendency to rigid dichotomies. Recalling how Bud-
trying to defend their ideas against counterexamples and to come up dhist philosophy tries to integrate disparate forces, she shows that
with counterexamples that refute the opponent's ideas. In this para- there is much to he gained from both feminist views-and, in any case,
digm, the best way to evaluate someone's work is to "subject it to the both perspectives tend to coexist within individuals. for example, even
strongest or most extreme opposition." though the constructionist view of gender has won ascendancy in aca-
But if you parry individual points-a negative and defensive en- demic theory (that's why we have the epithet "essentialist" to describe
terprise-you never step hack and actively imagine a world in which those who hold the view that is in disfavor but no commonly used ep-
a different system of ideas could he true--a positive act. And you ithet to sneer at the constructionist view), "feminists still struggle to
never ask how larger systems of thought relate to each other. Accord- recognize and name the commonalities among women that justify
ing to Moulton, our devotion to the Adversary Paradigm has led us to concern for women's lives around the world and produce political and
misinterpret the rype of argumentation that Socrates favored: We social alliances." Klein asks, "Why protest current conditions unless
think of the Socratic method as systematically leading an opponent the category 'women' is in some way a meaningful one?" She shows,
into admitting error. This is primarily a way of showing up an adver- too, that the very inclination to polarize varied views of women and
sary as wrong. Moulton shows that the original Socratic method-the feminism into two opposing camps is in itself essentialist because it
elenchus-was designed to convince others, to shake them out of their reduces complex and varied perspectives to simplified, monolithic
habitual mode of thought and lead them to new insight. Our version representations. This also makes it easy to dismiss-and fight ahout-
of the Socratic method-an adversarial public debate-is unlikely to others' work rather than think about it.
result in opponents changing their minds. Someone who loses a de- Reflecting this warring-camps view, journalist Cynthia Gorney
bate usually attributes that loss to poor performance or to an adver- asked Gloria Steinem, "Where do you stand in the current debate that
sary's unfair tactics. the feminist world has divided into 'equity' feminism versus 'differ-
ence' feminism-about whether women are to be treated like men or
as different from men?" This question hears all the earmarks of the
KNOWLEDGE AS WARRING CAMPS adversarial framework: the term "debate" and the separation of a
complex domain of inquiry into two opposed sides. Steinem re-
Anne Carolyn Klein, an American woman who spent many years sponded:
studying Tibetan Buddhism, joined a university program devoted to
women's studies in religion. It was her first encounter with contempo- [Sighs.]Of course, you understand that I've turned up in every cate-
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

gory. So it makes it harder for me to take the divisions with great se- to test and develop ideas is to debate them publicly. It may well be
riousness, since I don't feel attached to any of them-and also since true that most Chinese scientists are reluctant to engage in public,
I don't hear about the division from women who are not academics rancorous debate. I see nothing insulting about such a claim; it derives
or in the media. The idea that there are two "camps" has not been my from the Chinese cultural norms that many Chinese and Western ob-
experience. The mark to me of a constructive argument is one that servers have documented. But we also know that many Chinese have
looks at a specific problem and says, "What shall we do about this?" indeed been great scientists. The falsity of the dean's statement
And a nonconstructive one is one that tries to label people. "Differ- should lead us to question whether debate is the only path to insight.
ence" feminist, "gender" feminist-it has no meaning in specific sit-
uations.
CONSENSUS THROUGH DISSENSION?
In this short comment, Steinem puts her finger on several aspects
of the argument culture. First, she identifies academics and journal- . The culture of critique driving our search for knowledge in the sci-
ists as two groups that have a habit of-and a stake in-manufactur- . entific world of research is akin to what I have described in the do-
ing polarization and the appearance of conflict Second, she points mains of politics, journalism, and law. In those three institutions, an
out that this view of the world does not describe reality as most peo- increasingly warlike atmosphere has led many people already in those
ple live it. Third, she shows that polarizing issues into "a debate" often professions to leave, and many who would have considered entering
goes along with "labeling" the two sides: Lumping others together these professions in the past are now choosing other paths. Those who
and sticking a label on them makes it easy to ignore the nuances and remain are finding it less fun; they don't look forward to getting up
subtleties of their opinions and beliefs. Individuals are reduced to an and going to work in the same way that they and others used to. And
oversimplification of their ideas, transformed into the enemy, and de- in all these areas, raised voices and tempers are creating a din that is
monized. drowning out the. perhaps more numerous voices of dialogue and
False dichotomies are often at the heart of discord. reason. In law, critics of the principle of zealous advocacy object on
the grounds of what it does to the souls of those who practice within
the system, requiring them to put aside their consciences and natural
QUESTION THE BASIC ASSUMPTION inclination~-toward human compassion-just what some among the
press say about what aggression journalism is doing to journalists.
My aim is not to put a stop to the adversarial paradigm, the doubting Forces affecting these institutions are intertwined with each other
game, debate-but to diversify: Like a well-balanced stock portfolio, and with others I have not mentioned. For example, the rise of mal-
we need more than one path to the goal we seek. What makes it hard practice litigation, while prodding doctors to be more careful and
to question whether debate is truly the only or even the most fruitful providing deserved recompense to victims, has also made the doctor-
approach to learning is that we're dealing with assumptions that we patient relationship potentially more adversarial. At the same time,
and everyone around us take to be self-evident. A prominent dean at physicians are finding themselves in increasingly adversarial relation-
a major research university commented to me, "The Chinese cannot ships with HMOs and insurance companies-as are the patients
make great scientists because they will not debate publicly." Many themselves, who now need the kind of advice that was offered under
people would find this remark offensive. They would object because it the headline "When Your HMO Says No: How to Fight for the Treat-
generalizes about all Chinese scientists, especially since it makes a ment You Need-and Win."
negative evaluation. But I would also question the assumption that People in business, too, report an increasingly adversarial atmo-
makes the generalization a criticism: the conviction that the only way sphere. There are, of course, the hostile takeovers that have become
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF' DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE 279

common, along with lawsuits between companies and former em- bring down opponents. The sad result is that laws designed to im-
ployees. But there is also more opposition in the day-to-day doing of prove ethics have not improved ethics at all. Instead, they have made
business. A man who works at a large computer company in Silicon government almost impossible. Allegations trigger long investigations
Valley told me that he sees this daily. Disagreement and verbal attack that themselves damage reputations and suggest to the public that
are encouraged at meetings, under the guise of challenging assump- terrible things are going on even when they aren't.
tions and fostering creativity. But in reality, he observes, what is fos- Prosecutors, too, are part of the web, Ornstein continues. In the
tered is dissension. In the end, the company's ability to do business past, an ambitious prosecutor might set out to snare a criminal on the
can be threatened. He has seen at least one company virtually para- FBI's ten most wanted list. Now the temptation is to go after a senator
lyzed by trying to seek consensus after assiduously stirring up dissen- or cabinet member--or a vice president. That's where attention is
s10n. paid; that's where the rewards lie.
The threat is not only to those at the highest levels of government
but to public servants at every level. I spoke to someone prominent in
WHO WILL BE LEFT TO LEAD? the arts who was invited to join a federal commission. But first there
was a questionnaire to fill out-pages and pages of details requested
If this seems to describe an isolated phenomenon in a particular in- about the prospective nominee's personal, professional, and financial
dustry, take note: A comparable situation exists in our political life. life. Special request was made for anything that might be embarrass-
The culture of critique is threatening our system of governance. ing if it became public. The person in question simply declined the
Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise In- invitation.
stitute, articulates how. The artist I spoke to typified a situation Ornstein described: It is
Ornstein offers some astonishing statistics: Between 1975 and 1989, becoming almost impossible to get qualified people to serve in public
the number of federal officials indicted on charges of public corrup- positions, from the highest executive nominations to part-time or
tion we9-tup by a staggering 1,211 percent. During the same period, even honorary appointments. Leaving private life for public service
the number of nonfederal officials indicted doubled. What are we to has always required personal sacrifice: Your family life is disrupted;
make of this? he asks. Does it mean that officials during that decade you take a pay cut. But now those contemplating such a move must be
were far more corrupt than before? Not likely. Every systematic study, willing to make an even greater sacrifice: putting their personal repu-
as well as all anecdotal evidence, suggests just the opposite: Public of- tation at risk. Instead of enhancing reputations, going into public ser-
ficials are far less corrupt now; fewer take bribes, get drunk in the vices now threatens them, whether or not the officials have done
middle of their duties, engag~ in immoral conduct, and so on. anything to be ashamed of.
What we have is the culture of critique. The press is poised to Disruption of family life is intensified, too, by the inordinate delay,
pounce on allegations of scandal, giving them primacy over every Ornstein explained. While a nominee waits to be confirmed, life goes
other kind of news. And the standards by which scandals are judged on hold: A spouse's job is in limbo; children await a change in schools;
have declined. Allegations make the news, no matter where they come houses must-but can't-be found or rented or bought or sold. What
from, often without proof or even verification. (Remember the ruckus is causing the delays to become so much more protracted than they
that accompanied reports that planes were forced to circle and travel- were before? Every step in the process: Presidents (and their staffs)
ers were delayed while President Clinton got a haircut on Air Force must take much more time in choosing potential nominees, to make
One in the Los Angeles airport? And that George Bush did not know absolutely sure there is nothing in their lives or backgrounds that
what a supermarket scanner was? Both turned out to be false.) Politi- could embarrass not just the nominee but the president. Once people
cal opponents seize on these allegations and use them to punish or are selected, the FBI takes weeks or months longer than it used to for
280 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE 281

background checks, because it too wants to make sure it is not embar- eral a way, I couldn't help thinking that this sounds a bit like what
rassed later. Finally; the nomination goes to the Senate, where politi- journalists and lawyers have observed about their own tribes: that the
cal opponents of the president or the nominee try to go for the display of aggression for the benefit of peers is often more important
jugular on ethics charges. than concrete results.
The result of all these forces is a much smaller pool of qualified Consider again law professor Charles Yablon's observation that
people willing to consider public service, long periods when impor- young litigators learn to value an aggressive stance by listening to
tant posts are left vacant, a climate of suspicion that reinforces public their elders' war stories about "the smashing victories they obtained
doubts about the ethics of people in government, and real disruption during pretrial discovery in cases which ultimately were settled." Lit-
in the running of our country. , igators
We have become obsessed with the appearance of impropriety, as
Peter Morgan and Glenn Reynolds show in a book with that title. derive job satisfaction by recasting minor discovery disputes as ti-
Meanwhile, real impropriety goes unnoticed. We have to ask, as Orn- tanic struggles. Younger lawyers, convinced that their future careers
stein does, whether the price we're paying to have pristine individuals may hinge on how tough they seemwhile conducting discovery, may
fill every public post is worth what we're getting-and he (like Mor- conclude that it is more important to look and sound ferocious than
gan and Reynolds) doubts that what we're getting is less impropriety. to act cooperatively,even if all that huffing and puffing does not help
{and sometimes harms) their cases.

THE COST IN HUMAN SPIRIT Against this background, recall too the observations made by jour-
nalists that their colleagues feel pressured to ask tough questions to
Whatever the causes of the argument culmre--and the many causes get peer approval. Kenneth Walsh, for example, commented that "it
I have mentioned are surely not the only ones-the most grievous helps your stature in journalism" if you ask challenging questions be-
cost is the price paid in human spirit: Contentious public discourse cause that way "you show you're tough and you're independent." Just
becomes a model for behavior and sets the tone for how individuals as litigators trade war stories about how tough they appeared
experience their relationships to other people and to the society we (whether or not that appearance helped their client), Walsh points out
live in. · that a journalist who dares to challenge the president takes on a heroic
Recall the way young boys on Tory Island learned to emulate their aura among his peers. He recalled a specific incident to illustrate this
elders: point:

All around milled little boys imitating their elders, cursing, fluffing, Remember Brit Hume asking the question ... about the zigzag deci-
swaggering, threatening. It was particularly fascinating to see how sion-making process of President Clinton? And of course President
the children learned the whole sequence of behavior. Anything that Clinton cut off the questions after that one question because he felt
the men did, they would imitate, shouting the same things, strutting it was not appropriate. That's what we all remember about the Ruth
and swaggering. Bader Ginsburg period, is that Brit asked that question.

Tory Island may be an especially ritualized example, but it is not a to- Let's look at the actual exchange that earned Brit Hume the admi-
tally aberrant one. When young men come together in groups, they ration of his peers. President Clinton called the press conference to
often engage in symbolic ritual displays of aggression that involve announce his nomination of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the
posmring and mock battles. Without pressing the parallel in too lit- Supreme Court. After the president introduced her,Judge Ginsburg
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

spoke movingly about her life, ending with .tributes to her family: her which really goes much deeper than that: alienation from the public
children, granddaughter, husband, and, finally, her mother, "the figures who deeply affect our lives and consequently from the society
bravest and strongest person I have known, who was taken from me in which we live.
much too soon." Following these remarks, which moved listeners to In this sense, the valuing of the appearance of toughness is related
tears, journalists were invited to ask questions. The first (and, as it to another theme running through all the domains I discussed: the
turned out, also the last) asked by correspondent Hume was this: breakdown in human connections and the rise of anonymity. Lieu-
tenant Colonel Grossman points out that this, too, was one of many
The withdrawal of the Guinier nomination, sir, and your apparent ways that the experience of serving in Vietnam was different for
focus on Judge Breyer and your turn, late, it seems, to Judge Gins- American soldiers than was the experience of serving in previous
burg, may have treated an impression, perhaps unfair, of a certain wars. Remember my Uncle Norman, who at the age of eighty-seven
zigzag quality in the decision-making process here. I wonder, sir, if was still attending annual reunions of the "boys" h~ had served with
you could kind of walk us through it and perhaps disabuse us of any in World War II? This was possible because, as Grossman describes,
notion we might have along those lines. Thank you. soldiers in that war trained together, then went to war and served to-
gether. Those who were not killed or wounded stayed with the group
This question reminded everyone--at the very moment of Judge until they all went home together at the end of the war. No wonder
Ginsburg's triumph and honor-that she was not the president's first the bonds they forged could last a lifetime. Vietnam, in contrast, was a
choice. It broke the spell of her moving remarks by shifting attention "lonely war" of individuals assigned to constantly shifting units for
from the ceremonial occasion to the political maneuvers that had led year-long tours of duty (thirteen months for Marines). Grossman's
up to the nomination-in particular, implying criticism of the presi- description is graphic and sad:
dent not from the perspective of substance (whether Judge Ginsburg
would make a good Supreme Court justice) but strategy (the deci- In Vietnam most soldiers arrived on the battlefield alone, afraid, and
sion-making process by which she was chosen). Remarking, "How you without friends. A soldier joined a unit where he was an FNG, a
could ask a question like that after the statement she just made is be- "f---ing new guy," whose inexperience and incompetence repre-
yond me," the president closed the event. sented a threat to the continued survival of those in the unit. In a few
The answer to how Brit Hume could have asked a question like months, for a brief period, he became an old hand who was bonded
that lies in Walsh's observation that journalists value a display of to a few friends and able to function well in combat. But then, all too
toughness. In this view, to worry about Judge Ginsburg's feelings-or soon, his friends left him via death, injury, or the end of their
those of the viewing audience--would be like an attorney worrying tours .... All but the best of units became just a collection of men ex-
about the feelings of a witness about to be cross-examined. But pub- periencing endless leavings and arrivals, and that sacred process of
lic ceremonies play a role in the emotional lives not only of partici- bonding, which makes it possible for men to do what they must do in
pants but also of observers, an enormous group in the era of combat, became a tattered and torn remnant of the support structure
television. Viewers who were moved by Judge Ginsburg's personal experienced by veterans of past American wars.
statement shared in the ceremony and felt connected to the judge
and, by implication, to our judicial system. Such feelings of connec- Though this pattern is most painful in this context, it parallels what
tion to public figures whose actions affect our lives is a crucial ele- we have seen in all the other domains of public dialogue. Recall at-
ment in individuals' sense of community and their feeling of torney Susan Popik's observation "You don't come up against the
well-being. Breaking that spell was harmful to this sense of connec- same people all the time. That encouraged you to get along with them
tion, contributing a little bit to what is often called cynicism but because you knew that in six months, you would be across the table
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE 285

from them again." Recall journalists' lamenting that the present Pologist who teaches at George Mason University, makes a point of
White House press corps is a large group, often unknown to aides and having her class compare threecultures, not two. If students compare
leaders, kept at a distance from the leaders they are assigned to cover: two cultures, she finds, they are inclined to polarize them, to think of
confined in a small room, in the back of the president's plane, behind the two as opposite to each other. But if they compare three cultures,
ropes at public events. Contrast this with the recollections of those they are more likely to think about each on its own terms.
old enough to remember a small White House press corps that had As a goal, we could all try to catch ourselves when we talk about
free run of official buildings and lots of private off-the-record meet- "both sides" of an issue-and talk instead about "all sides." And peo-
ings with public officials, including the president and first lady, so that ple in any field can try to resist the temptation to pick on details when
they actually got to know them-as people. And recall departing Sen- they see a chance to score a point. If the detail really does not speak
ator Heflin's regret about the decline of opportunities for legislators to the main issue, bite your tongue. Draw back and consider the whole
of opposing parties to socialize, which led to friendships developed picture. After asking, "Where is this wrong?" make an effort to ask
"across party and ideological lines" that "led to more openness and "What is right about this?"-not necessarily instead,but in addition.
willingness to discuss issues on a cordial basis" and to finding "com- In the public arena, producers can try to avoid, whenever possible,
mon ground." We could add the demise of the family doctor who structuring public discussions as debates. This means avoiding the
came to your home, replaced by an overworked internist or family format of having two guests discuss an issue, pro and con. In some
practitioner-if not an anonymous emergency room-and, if you're cases three guests---or one-will be more enlightening than two.
unlucky enough to need them but lucky enough to get to see them, a An example of the advantage of adding a third guest was an
cadre of specialists who may not talk to each other or even much to episode of The Diane RehmShowon National Public Radio following
you, or surgeons who may spend hours saving your life or limb but the withdrawal of Anthony Lake from nomination as director of cen-
hardly ever see or speak to you afterward. tral intelligence. White House Communications Director Ann Lewis
In all these domains, wonderful progress has been accompanied by claimed that the process of confirming presidential appointments has
more and more anonymity and disconnection, which are damaging to become more partisan and personal. Tony Blankley, former commu-
the human spirit and fertile ground for animosity. nications director for Newt Gingrich, claimed that the process has al-
ways been rancorous. Fortunately for the audience, there was a third
guest historian Michael Beschloss, who provided historical perspec-
GETTING BEYOND DUALISM tive. He explained that during the immediately preceding period of
1940 to 1990, confirmation hearings were indeed more benign than
At the heart of the argument culrure is our habit of seeing issues and they have been since, but in the 1920s and the latter half of the nine-
ideas as absolute and irreconcilable principles continually at war. To teenth century, he said, they were also "pretty bloody." In this way, a
move beyond this static and limiting view, we can remember the Chi- third guest, especially a guest who is not committed to one side, can
nese approach to yin and yang. They are two principles, yes, but they dispel the audience's frustration when two guests make opposite
are conceived not as irreconcilable polar opposites but as elements claims.
'I
that coexist and should be brought into balance as much as possible. Japanese television talk shows provide a window on other possibil-
',
As sociolinguist Suzanne Wong Scollon notes, "Yin is always present ities. Sociolinguist Atsuko Honda compared three different current
in and changing into yang and vice versa." How can we translate this affairs talk shows televised in Japan. Each one presents striking con-
abstract idea into daily practice? trasts to what Americans take for granted in that genre. (The very fact
To overcome our bias toward dualism, we can make special efforts th~t Honda chose to compare three-not two--is instructive.) The
not to think in twos. Mary Catherine Bateson, an author and anthro- Japanese shows were structured in ways that made them less likely to
286 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE Roars OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

be adversarial. Within each structure, participants vigorously op- Defense Forces, supported sending these forces to Cambodia. He was
posed each other's ideas, yet they did so without excessively polariz- opposed by Irokawa, a historian who believed that the involvement of
ing the issues. these forces violated the Japanese constitution. This exchange comes
Consider the formats of the three shows: NichiyooTooron(Sunday across as quite rancorous:
Discussion)featured a moderator and four guests who discussed the
recession for an hour. Only the moderator was a professional news SmKATA: Why is it OK to send troops to the protecting side but
commentator; two guests were associated with research institutes. not OK to the protected side?
The two other shows Honda examined concerned Japanese involve- lROKAWA: Because we have the Japanese Constitution.
ment in a peacekeeping mission in Cambodia. Sunday Projectfeatured SHIKATA: Why is it so, if we have the Constitution?
three guests: one magazine editor and two political scientists; the lROKAWA: Well, we have to abide by the Constitution. If you don't
third show was a three-and-a-half-hour discussion involving fourteen want to follow the Constitution, you should get rid of
panelists sitting around an oval table with a participating studio audi- your Japanese nationality and go somewhere else.
ence composed of fifty Japanese and Cambodian students. Viewers
were also invited to participate by calling or faxing. Among the pan- These are pretty strong words. And they were accompanied by strong
elists were a history professor, a military analyst, a movie director, a gestures: According to Honda, as Shikata posed his question, he was
scholar, a newscaster, and a legislator. beating the table with his palms; as Irokawa responded, he was jabbing
It is standard for American shows to provide balance by featuring the air toward Shikata with a pen.
two experts who represent contrasting political views: two senators or Yet the confrontation did not take on a rancorous tone. The televi-
political consultants (one Republican, one Democrat), two journalist sion cameras offered close-ups of both men's faces-smiling. In Japa-
commentators (one.on the left, one on the right), or two experts (one nese and other Asian cultures, smiling has different connotations than
pro and one con). These Japanese shows had more than two guests, it does for Americans and Europeans: It tends to express not amuse-
and the guests were identified by their expertise rather than their po- ment but embarrassment. And while Shikata and lrokawa smiled,
litical perspectives. Another popular Japanese show that is often com- other panelists rushed to add their voices-and everyone burst out
pared to ABC's Nightline or PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour is called laughing. The laughter served to defuse the confrontation. So did the
Close-upGendai:Providing thirty minutes of nightly news analysis, the loud cacophony of voices that erupted as several panelists tried to
Japanese show uses a format similar to these American TV shows. But speak at once. When individual voices finally were distinguished, they
it typically features a single guest. Japanese shows, in other words, did not take one side or the other but tried to mediate the conflict by
have a wide range of formats featuring one guest or three or more-- supporting and criticizing both sides equally. For example, Ohshima,
anything but two, the number most likely to polarize. · a movie director, said:
The political talk shows that Honda analyzed included many dis-
agreements and conflicts. But whereas moderators of American and 0HSHIMA: I think that both parties overestimate or underestimate
British talk shows often provoke and stoke conflict to make their the realities for the sake of making a point.
shows more interesting, the Japanese moderators-and also the other
guests--expended effort to modulate conflicts and defuse the spirit of Atsuko Honda found this to be typical of the televised discussions
opposition, but not the substance of disagreement. One last example, she analyzed: When a conspicuous conflict arose between two parties,
taken from Honda's study, illustrates how this worked. other participants frequently moved in with attempts to mediate. In
In the long discussion among fourteen panelists, a dispute arose this way, they supported the Japanese ideal of avoiding winners and
between two: Shikata, a former executive of the Japanese Self- losers and helped everyone preserve some measure of "face." This
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE THE ROOTS OF DEBATE AND HOPE OF DIALOGUE

mediation did not prevent varying views from being expressed; it re- 1
being framed in the most constructive way. If it is, a third or fourth
sulted in different kinds of views being expressed. If two sides set the participant could be invited as well, to temper the "two sides" per-
terms of debate and subsequent comments suppon one side or the spective.
other, the range of insights offered is circumscribed by the original Perhaps it is time to reexamine the assumption that audiences al-
two sides. If the goal instead is to mediate and defuse polarization, ways prefer a fight. In reviewing a book about the history of National
then other panelists are more likely to express a range of perspectives Geographic, Marina Warner scoffs at the magazine's policy of avoiding
that shed nuanced light on the original two sides or suggest other attack. She quotes the editor who wrote in 1915, "Only what is of a
ways of approaching the issue entirely. kindly nature is printed about any country or people, everything
unpleasant or unduly critical being avoided." Warner describes this
editorial approach condescendingly as a "happy-talk, feel-good phi-
MOVING FROM DEBATE TO DIALOGUE losophy" and concludes that "its deep wish not to offend has often
made it dull." But the facts belie this judgment. NationalGeographic is
Many of the issues I have discussed are also of concern to Amitai Et- one of the most successful magazines of all time-as reported in the
zioni and other communitarians. In The New GoldenRule,Etzioni pro- same review, its circulation "stands at over 10 million, and the reader-
poses rules of engagement to make dialogue more constructive ship, according to surveys, is four times that number."
between people with differing views. His rules of engagement are de- Perhaps, too, it is time to question our glorification of debate as the
signed to reflect-and reinforce-the tenet that people whose ideas best, if not the only, means of inquiry. The debate format leads us to
conflict are still members of the same community. Among these rules regard those doing different kinds of research as belonging to warring
are: camps. There is something very appealing about conceptualizing dif-
fering approaches in this way, because dichotomies appeal to our
• Don't demonize those with whom you disagree. sense of how knowledge should be organi~d.
• Don't affront their deepest moral commitments. Well, what's wrong with that?
• Talk less of rights, which are nonnegotiable, and more of needs, What's wrong is that it obscures aspects of disparate work that
wants,and interests. overlap and can enlighten each other.
• Leave some issues out What's wrong is that it obscures the complexity of research. Fitting
• Engage in a dialogue of convictions: Don't be so reasonable and ideas into a particular camp requires you to oversimplify them. Again,
conciliatory that you lose touch with a core of belief you feel pas- disinformation and distortion can result. Less knowledge is gained,
sionately about. not more. And time spent attacking an opponent or defending against
attacks is not spent doing something else-like original research.
As I stressed in earlier chapters, producers putting together televi- What's wrong is that it implies that only one framework can apply,
sion or radio shows and journalists covering stories might consider- when in most cases many can. As a colleague put it, "Most theories are
in at least some cases-preferring rather than rejecting potential wrong not in what they assert but in what they deny." Clinging to the
commentators who say they cannot take one side or the other un- elephant's leg, they loudly proclaim that the person describing the
equivocally. Information shows might do better with only one guest elephant's tail is wrong. This is not going to help them--or their read-
who is given a chance to explore an idea in depth rather than two who ers-understand an elephant. Again, there are parallels in personal
will prevent each other from developing either perspective. A pro- relationships. I recall a man who had just returned from a weekend
ducer who feels that two guests with radically opposed views seem human development seminar. Full of enthusiasm, he explained the
truly the most appropriate might begin by asking whether the issue is main lesson he had learned: "I don't have to make others wrong to
 THE ARGUMENT CULTURE

prove that I'm right." He experienced this revelation as a liberation; it

relieved him of the burden of trying to prove others wrong.
If you limit your view of a problem to choosing between two sides,
you inevitably reject much that is true, and you narrow your field of
vision to the limits of those two sides, making it unlikely you'll pull
back, widen your field of vision, and discover the paradigm shift that
will permit truly new understanding. NOTES
In moving away from a narrow view of debate, we need not give up
conflict and criticism altogether. Quite the contrary, we can develop
more varied-and more constructive-ways of expressing opposition
and negotiating disagreement.
We need to use our imaginations and ingenuity to find different
ways to seek truth and gain knowledge, and add them to our arsenal-
or, should I say, to the ingredients for our stew. It will take creativity
to find ways to blunt the most dangerous blades of the argument cul-
ture. It's a challenge we must undertake, because our public and pri-
vate lives are at stake.

Note:Sources referred to by short form are cited in full in the References.

1. FIGHTING FOR OUR LIVES

7. "cultureof critique':I first introduced this term in an op-ed essay, "The Triumph
of the Yell," The New YorkTimes.Jan.14, 1994, p. A29.
7. "Therearemoments''.·Charles Simic, "In Praise of Invective," Harper's,Aug. 1997,
pp. 24, 26--27; the quote is from p. 26. The article is excerpted from OrphanFactory
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997). I am grateful to Amitai Etzioni for
calling this article to my attention.
8. Both the term "agonism" and the phrase "programmed contentiousness" come
from Walter Ong, Fighting.forLife.
10. "thegreat backpackingvs. car campingdebate''.· Steve Hendrix, "Hatchback vs.
Backpack," The WashingtonPostWeekend, Mar. 1, 1996, p. 6.
11. creationism: See, for example,Jessica Mathews, "Creationism Makes a Come-
back," The WashingtonPost,Apr. 8, 1996, p. A2 l.
11. "People disputethat~·Lipstadt, Denyingthe Holocaust, p. 15. Lipstadt cites Esquire,
Feb. 1983, for the interview with Mitchum.
12. Gallobad to spend:See Nicholas Wade, "Method and Madness: The Vindica-
tion of Robert Gallo," The New YorkTimesMagazine,Dec. 26, 1993, p. 12, and Elaine