A friend of mine grew up in a house of discussion, debate, and disputation. Every topic was a fresh opportunity for disagreement. They weren’t fighting with each other, mind you, just talking with passion. It was the family past-time, and they knew how to do it without hurting one another’s feelings.
This same friend’s wife had the opposite experience. Her family never fought, never debated, and hardly ever disagreed. Differing opinions were looked upon as potential fights to be avoided. Tension was resolved with space, time, and the tacit agreement to never again bring up the issue.
As you might imagine, this created a certain imbalance in their home. Both of them were skilled at sniffing out the slightest tension. Upon detecting a mild difference of opinion, they proceeded to react in opposite ways. She would retreat, he would advance. She wanted to avoid discussion, and he wanted to settle the matter. He even offered her counterpoints to his own arguments. The result was a slow chase around the house with my friend arguing against himself.
Though absurd, my friend’s situation is far from unique. Most of us have some kind of reaction to argument. And often, that reaction is anxiety. I’ve been in plenty of discussions (I suspect you have too) where a difference of opinion arises and someone in the group tries desperately to snuff it out. They read disagreement as social tension, and try to ease it as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, some people say that they enjoy debate. Too often this is code for, “I’ve never conceded a point.” With an offensive posture, they deflect every question and wave off every challenge. In so doing, they guarantee that the discussion won’t advance.
Socrates had a different approach. He certainly wasn’t scared of debate. After all, he was in the habit of asking provocative questions to everyone he encountered. But neither was he a pugilist; using discourse as an opportunity to pummel his interlocutors. Instead, he approached every conversation with a mix of curiosity and humility. He was confident that other people knew things that he didn’t know, and he was determined to find those things out.
The Socratic method gives more dignity to human beings than much of our contemporary dialogue. Instead of mocking or pathologizing disagreement, it asks questions. In so doing, it assumes that the people with whom we are speaking are reasonable. It assumes that they hold their positions because they believe them to be true.
I recognize that my wife and I are currently creating a home that is having an impact on our kids. The way we handle controversy is shaping how they react to it. I hope they will grow up to be comfortable with debate. I hope they will soak up the rules of good discourse – maybe even learn a fallacy or two. I want them to think of disagreement, not as a reason for anxiety or aggression, but as an opportunity for curiosity and humility. Who knows, maybe our discussions will even impress them.
This is the fifth post in a series on the topic of conversation. Links to the previous posts are below:
1. How to Impress a Teenager