"Argument Culture": Implications for Politics

For this post, I read the second chapter of Tannen's "The Argument Culture." Throughout this chapter, Tannen makes a convincing case towards how we can see evidence of our "argument culture" in the press.

Having had experience with the press before, I can honestly say that this is the absolute truth. I was editor of my high school newspaper when I was in 10th grade and I also was in charge of the Opinion Page of the paper. Of my own idea, in every publication of the paper,I presented what I entitled "Divided," a glimpse into the most difficult of issues such as the War in Iraq and the death penalty. I would interview polar opposites on these issues and publish quotations and views from both sides in a T-chart. Talk about fitting Tannen's descriptions almost exactly.

One conclusion I've come to is that perhaps our consumption with arguing and debating has to do with our Capitialist society. We have an overly-competative system, focused completely on the bettering of ourselves as individuals as opposed to collectively pooling resources or ideas to better our entire nation or even the world. It's no wonder that the educational system's "Goals 2000" presented by President Clinton/Bush pushes the desired goal of America being the first in both mathematics and science -- our own argument culture has broken through the borders of our nation and has plagued the world, instilling an infectuous competition-driven educational system throughout other nations such as China and Japan. Nothing is ever good enough for Americans.

This two-sided competition presents itself mostly through politics such as the ongoing Republican vs. Democrat show. If someone claims to be neither a Republican or Democrat, he or she is automatically ruled-out as a progressive thinker, seen as ignorant or just plain arrogant. There's a reason why I avoid politics -- because I do not side with anyone, and because the media has created such a joke out of significant issues. The rhetorical side of politics is the primary focus, not the issues themselves. If a politician claims pieces of each party's agenda, he or she is immediately seen as wishy-washy, not held in esteem by either party.

Our consumption with argument is absolutely represented by the boom in reality television shows. But competitors are chosen based upon personality -- whether or not he or she will be a captivating character, whether or not he or she will spark controversy or argument. Especially in shows like "Wife Swap," families that are typically polar-opposites are chosen simply for the sake of "drama," while producers would likely claim that it is simply to give the families experience in other households that are not like their own. While that is a possibility, the shows are about making money, not about trying to change people's lives or views. They could care less if a man makes better choices about staying home with his wife and children as opposed to hanging out with his childish co-workers or if a child begins to respect his parents and helps around the house more often.

The key here truly lies in our Capitalist, competition-driven society. I'm not a socialist, but seriously, if anyone is wondering how this "argument culture" emerged, the answer is in where the money lies.

Not for Media Literacy, But For Jesus Literacy

It's truly amazing to me, sometimes.
The absolute sincerity and love people have in their hearts.
It's a profound sort of notion these days, that anyone can have compassion for someone else, especially if that "someone else" is a complete stranger.

But tonight at work as a cashier at Wal-Mart, I observed something that shocked me.
Two women, middle-aged.
A baby in a carseat in the shopping cart.
I am almost finished with their order when one of the women notices she's gone way over the amount of money she actually had with her.
She begins asking me to take some of the baby food out of the bag to void it from her purchase.
I comply, feeling awfully sorry for the baby, who'd apparently been having health issues as well.
And now she wasn't going to be fed.

There was a man standing next in line, about twenty-years-old.
He couldn't help overhearing the issue or observing the process as I voided tiny cans of smashed peas and carrots.
He turns to the women and gains their attention, "Hey, are you guys just short a couple of bucks?"
They just stare at him, English not having been their first language apparently -- but I think they were dumbfounded by the question itself, too.
"I'll cover whatever you can't."

I'm sure they couldn't help notice my jaw drop.
A complete and utter stranger.
Offering to help.
Financially.
In a time where finances are seriously scaring people.

As the women finally catch-on to what the man has said, they look at me just as dumbfounded as I'm sure I looked at them.
They thank the man again and again, who simply says, "I don't want her to go hungry."

In the words of Sara Evans, "These are the moments I thank God that I'm alive."

Incredible.
It honestly gives me such hope in humanity, something I've come to lose recently.

I love it. I truly love it.

People should do this more often.
Instead of being so focused on ourselves, we should think more of the needs of others.
Selflessly give and expect absolutely nothing in return.
Give something that means so much to us for the sake of others.
Sacrifice.
You know, like God did?
You know, like Jesus did?
That's what I call faith in action.
Amazing.

<3

"Argument Culture": In the Media

It's almost insane to think how many implications Tannen has given towards our culture even within the first chapter of "Argument Culture." I found myself contemplating her words, agreeing with almost everything she said.

Almost immediately after finishing the chapter, I visited my Facebook page and noticed a post by one of my friends about the comment a religious Christian man, notorious for his claims about people bringing tragedies upon themselves, said about the people of Haiti. The video connected to the post exposed the story and the controversial words that the man had said, and included comments from those who disagreed with him. It completely ties back to Tanner's claims that something is either right or wrong in our culture, that we are more interested in conflict and saying that our own views are better than others. In the video, no reason was given for any disagreement; it was merely stated again and again in a snooty tone that the religious man must be some kind of a nut -- even that he was the "devil himself." Instead of listening to any reasoning on either side of the issue, views were dismissed and counted as absurd.

Very intriguing that Tannen can be so positively correct -- yet, she'd probably be annoyed with that very notion. Man, it's so hard to agree with her without doing the very thing she herself is against. Hmm.

"Argument Culture": Implications for Religious Discussions

I am writing this post having read only a short passage out of Deborah Tannen's "The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words." Actually, I've only read two entire pages.

Even so far, Tannen has made quite the argument, and it is one I agree with almost completely. Here's a quote: "Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having an argument" (Tannen, p.4).

It seems that today, everything is completely enveloped in the idea that there are two sides to every story, and inevitably, this means that someone is either right or wrong. The trouble with this is that while we claim our correctness and others' ignorance, we are closing ourselves off to others' points of view. This makes for an arrogant, cruel society, where nobody has any room to breathe, let alone think for themselves.

I used to think that our culture always supported open-mindedness and contemplation and reflection on other views and ideas. But as a free-thinking adult, I now see the opposite. For me, this always materializes itself in the conversations I have about my religion or my eating habits. As a Christian vegetarian, I certainly don't fit the "norm" -- certainly not as a Christian and definitely not as a vegetarian. Therefore, conflicts tend to arise quite often for me, as I am attacked and ridiculed for my beliefs again and again.

I've always had an accepting view of the world and of others' ideas, but it's difficult to have a discussion with someone over central issues when everything we talk about turns into an argument or debate of some sort. Discussions are not a one-way street.

As a teenager, I've joined countless online social networking sites, and particulary Myspace comes to mind when I think about this topic. Utilizing the "group" networking on Myspace allows you to join forces with those who believe the same as you about a certain topic, and to discuss issues with those who agree -- but you always have the scammer, the annoying person who joins a group purely for the same of argument. He or she comments on your group posts, clearly stating his or her disagreement, and sparking an argument or two that causes more chaos than not.

I believe, truly, that we have all become too selfish and consumed with being "right" that we can no longer learn to work together. Remember kindergarten? Everything you ever needed to know, and yet we've lost the "sharing" ability and even the "listening" ability in the midst of our "argument culture." There's a reason why I tend to stay as far as I possibly can away from politics.

I hope that Tannen continues to make her arguement (not spark one) against our culture's overwhelmingly pathetic obsession with negative communication. I'd love to see it change.

Media Surveillance

Media, media, media...

I ponder how much I actually use media in my daily life. Am I really the consumed American teenager with nothing better to do than to snoop into others' lives, completely obsessed with how others live and interact and look and behave, forgetting my own place in the world? I wouldn't like to think so.

But I still wonder. I use the Internet several times a day, logging onto Facebook and updating my status, checking my mail, and maybe commenting on a few others' pages. I listen to music all the time, the same CDs and songs and artists continually on repeat over and over again on my iPod, which I happened to shatter earlier today due to lack of sleep and food and concrete stairs. What does it mean that I wasn't terribly upset about my iPod's unfortunate demise? What does it mean that I flip quickly through news channels, regardless of which ones they are, to get to stupid reality TV shows about groups of idiotic people who are desperate for their five minutes of fame? What does it mean that I'd rather listen to CDs or Christian music than general radio shows and talk shows and this shows and that shows? What does that show?

Perhaps that I'm not as enveloped and entranced by media as my peers. Or perhaps that I am just as consumed as they are. Media itself warns its viewers/listeners/fanatics that it can be wrong. Obviously it does. There are talk shows about how talk shows are ridiculous. And documentaries about how news stories are more sensational than factual. Media trumps media. Heck, I'd say that even this class might be some sort of conspiracy to expose us to media, in return for our loyal devotion to it.

Just something to think about.