There were a few intriguing and though-provoking lines throughout the chapter we read for today out of "Argument Culture," but I want to focus on this paragraph in particular:
"We all tend to think of ourselves as reacting to others and others' behavior as absolute. If we hear ourselves snapping at someone, we focus on what we were reacting to. We think of ourselves as nice people who were provoked. But if someone else snaps at us, we rarely wonder what we said to provoke this response. Instead, we judge the other person's personality: He is rude, she is temperamental. The same thing happens when public figures are criticized for behavior that is a reaction to provocative questions put to them. This would be less unjust if the provoked reactions really did reveal their 'true selves.' But as often as not, they simply reveal the frustration of being caught in the web of the culture of critique" (Tannen, 67).
This is so significant to me because I have seen it so many times. Our perceptions of ourselves as logical, having thought our responses out thoroughly, are completely twisted. There is no way that a person could logically think of a quick response to a provocative question -- there's too much at stake. Especially when it comes to my faith, provocative questions illicit time and thought, they need to be supported by the Bible and such. But since sometimes it takes longer than others to come up with a response, any answer that is given is taken to be false or is criticized as being "the easy way out." I can't explain how many times that has happened to me.
Judging others based upon their fast responses to such questions as "illogical" or "argumentative" is like saying that a sweet dog is vicious because he barked when the doorbell rang. It's ridiculous, and I think that answers given to provocative questions need to be taken with a grain of salt. There's no way that the "truth" actually comes out; what comes out is our defense mechanisms that we've had to create and build simply to protect ourselves against stupid questions that threaten our reputations. What is said in an argument is often the result of being fired-up and angry, not because a person truly believes that his or her spouse is really a(n) [insert name here].
What do you think?
By: Melanie Pawlikowski
Arguements are always going to happen. I tend to argue frequently about the stresses of life, the confusion of life, anything and everything that causing an unsetteling feeling. This is not bad and it never ever means that I say things that are not the truth. I stronly believe that over time, within the relationships that I have had and currently have, I have learned to argue with class, I would say. When ever I am angry or arguing with anyone, we have mutual "ground-rules." I will not raise my voice, I will not respond to anything that the other person says without thinking about why that person said that or did that, and thinking about the right thing to say. Arguing shouldn't be a war of who can hurt who the most, who can dehumanize or put-down who the most-arguing is a form of conversation where thoughts that are normally bottled may be introduced to a possible solution or theory. I will never say that media is 100% negative and I will never say that it is 100% positive. I try to decide for myself when their is truth or even a grain of truth in what people say during arguements, and I almost always believe there is because thoughts do not cross the mind with no source of creation... Media, like reality TV shows and such, have use arugments to kind of (in my opinion) challenge the viewers. Can these viewers look past the drunken rants, emotional oubursts, and break-ups-and see peoples insecurities? Then you have to ask is our society mentally developed enough and strong enough to resist adopting these insecurties? Really, is media influencing society, or is it challening society to be more human?
ReplyDeleteLast comment was made by Kaley Burton. (I forgot to mention.)
ReplyDelete