3.22

Continuing my discussion of modern discourse from last week, I’d like to focus on a point I made that may have been lost in the politics. Specifically, the idea that we, as a society, have problems to fix, not battles to win. I’m hardly alone in this critique, but I think it bears mentioning because it’s a point that we continually forget as we’re swept away in polemics and partisans. 

I would argue that, more often than not, the goal of our modern discussions is persuasion. Successful persuasion, in many minds, this is equivalent to “victory.” This is somewhat inevitable in a democracy, because if a person changes who or what they intend to vote for, that side literally gets another “check in their column.” In many ways it is comparable to a sporting event, with two sides (at least in our political system) battling it out, pushing and pulling until one eventually wins the tug of popular opinion war. 

Indeed, that’s how I began to watch the 2008 elections, as sporting events. The polls went up and down, and my emotions went with them. I knew they didn’t mean much, just like the score in the second quarter of football means little once the fourth quarter ends, but I rode the rollercoaster all the same. One side wins and exults, the other nurses its wounds and vows to show Tim Tebo- er, Barack Obama who’s boss next time. 

Even the way we’re taught essay writing and argumentation lends itself to less emphasis on “truth” and more emphasis on method and entertainment appeal. “There are no wrong answers, just poor arguments” goes the teacher’s refrain, and we take this to heart. I know I’ve written essays where my sole purpose has been to argue a point I don’t entirely believe or agree because I have to for an assignment. Pages of wishy-washy nuance aren’t helpful while writing a 45-minute essay, and the result is, in common parlance, little but “B.S.” in terms of content and value. 

Comparably, in debate teams (one of the few outlets of intellectual challenge in some high schools, aside from the trivial pursuits of quiz bowls), the focus is on argumentative technique, not on ascertaining “the truth.” The person who makes the best argument wins. 

This mentality carries over into popular culture. Political talk shows meant to inform generally devolve into any given program putting on a Democrat and a Republican and saying “go at it, our job here is done!” It is a contest, a war that may not have a clear victor but with no doubt that little but fighting is going on. 

Such a framing of debate was famously skewered when Jon Stewart went on the now defunct Crossfire and pointed out the absurdity of having people yell at each other for an hour and then claiming “we’re informed!” Two sides do not an accurate understanding make. 

Indeed, some (arguably many) people have little interest in “the truth;” they simply want to be right. Or rather, they want to feel as if they’re right. This leads to an embrace of Stephen Colbert’s illustrious “truthiness:” the idea that if something feels right, it must be right. As a result, we have situations where individuals are convinced of the rightness of their ideas before debate even occurs, leading to the aforementioned battles and focus on style and persuasion. 

Unfortunately, a successful alternative is something of a tough sell (so to speak) when profit, not providing information, is the primary motivator and arguably necessary supporting evil for popular news and discourse facilitators. 

I can't help myself, though, in wanting a world where individuals were humble enough to doubt they could ever completely know “truth” but ambitious enough to constantly seek it. A discourse that was satisfied with “I don't know, but I'm eager to learn” as an acceptable alternative to an opinion itching for a fight. A level of debate that was about mutual exploration and growth, not a vicious desire to assert one's own opinion as dominant and inescapable. 

In this ideal, two people meet for discussion with the intent of mutual growth, not of proving something or arguing for the sake of arguing. One person offers their view, the other offers theirs, the views counter, critique, augment each other, growing and challenging but not, as a matter a purpose, defeating each other. 

Such a wish is, admittedly, unrealistic and, ultimately, unlikely to prove more “productive” than what we have. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't, at least occasionally, give such changes a try.