"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.