Identifying Perspective
I’ve been privy to several good topical debates lately (without provocation I might add) and most of them really pointed out how people ‘hear’ a debate.
Have you ever started arguing with someone only to find 10 minutes later that you were arguing points on two different topics all together? Someone has to give the ‘Oh, I thought you were talking about (personal topic in mind here), not (other person’s personal topic)’.
So, much to the chagrin of two avid debaters, there has, in fact, been no debate at all. I think this happens even when two or more persons do agree they are arguing on the same topic.
Arguing on the same topic is counter-productive to arguing on the same point.
Examples are due. I’ll start with probably the most heated passionate debate of modern times. Abortion. All arguments for and against abortion rights tend to center on one central predicament, which is (arguably?) ‘at what point in time does a human become a human’.
That central point is the one I hear debated the least. I hear passionate cries for mercy on unborn children, complete with posters of aborted fetuses and angry words about how careless people are for life and how I need to thank my parents for not choosing abortion.
Then I hear pro-choicers bring up how those pro-lifers would rather hurt women and their rights and how unconstitutional this is to violate these personal choices.
It’s all garbage debate.
Pro-choicers don’t really want to kill babies and pro-lifers don’t really want to harm living women. When I hear these two sides debate their points, they seem to say exactly these fallacies about their oppossing views.
A solid ethics debate probably doesn’t encounter these problems, but the average joe on the street uses these exact arguments to stake a claim in the debate.
Example #2 – I was recently debating the role of members in a family. My partner in the debate admitted he believed in traditional roles where the father is a bread-winner type and the mother is in charge of the home and it’s duties. He furthered his argument stating that certain genetic values instilled in men and women enhanced the ability to perform these separate roles more efficiently.
I caught myself in a long pause before I could enter my side in on this debate. I thought I believed in equality between men and women, which seemed to be put in struggle by my partner’s claims. Initially, I felt I was arguing counter to his claim, then I realized I only had a contention with his view.
Debating whether traditional roles are better for families is different than arguing that women are better for the ‘mom’ role while men are better suited for the ‘dad’ role. Well that made for a different thought all together.
Now I wondered if I believed that a strong family structure should have a parental element at home while another parental element was at work. I was in a position of agreeing about traditional values, while contending which ’sex’ ought to fill these roles.
That’s a matter of perspective. I could have continued on to even more points of contention such as asking who are these traditional values supposed to benefit and how?
Are we trying to benefit the children? The parents? Is this better in terms of U.S. Taxation law, or perhaps the effect of women and men trying to work in the employment community? Maybe these roles actually benefit traffic conditions at various times of the day?
The point is, while I could take a guess at what my partner was trying to argue for, I think it’s obvious that his starting point is different then perhaps mine, or many others. The real point, of course, is that this happens to you, whether you know it or not.
I find that a lot of times in debates I agree with people but for different reasons, which then begs the question: is the result more important, or the method used to obtain it?
Comment by Adkenar — December 6, 2005 @ 21:32
This is an interesting point that Derrida’s deconstruction hints at. When we use words, we mean certain things–words are attached, to the best of our ability, to our own experiences. Thus, we have “knowledge” of a word based upon our lives. If it is an abstract term, the way in which we were taught the concept alters our knowledge. These tiny subtleties, usually very meaningless in day-to-day conversation, come to surface when we discuss our knowledge in a more involved, personal way.
To avoid this situation (although Derrida actually rejects this), I think it’s best to define the terms at the beginning of a debate. I’ve reverted to setting the stage of the debate right off when getting into a discussion with them–with abortion, for example, I’ll explain that it is simply a metaphysical debate, ultimately. If someone has something new to bring to the table, then I’ll listen. Otherwise, I’ll politely excuse myself and let the people on either side of the fence start with their yelling.
Comment by Jesse — December 15, 2005 @ 10:45
I should have well expected someone from IE (Intellectual Elite for those who weren’t aware) would have a formalized explanation of this phenomena.
I started this article on an even simpler basis, though I now feel compelled to check into Derrida. Mine was based on the simple notion of logical argument construction and premises.
By the way, I agree with you, Jesse. If at all possible, take a moment to define the terms of what is being argued. It was recent debates that reminded me how few people have any formal education in debate semantics, and hence stimulated the idea to write about argumentation in the vernacular of non-philosophy majors.
I suppose, as if our education system isn’t troubled enough, this would be my starting opinion on why debate should be formally included with ‘Speech’ class in elementary schools. Well, at least somewhere in school. If we needed to do jumping jacks in P.E. class, and make noodle necklaces in Art, I don’t see how argumenatation and basic logic didn’t make the cut.
Comment by JT — December 15, 2005 @ 17:19
I think formal instruction would encourage a lot of positive trends in society, but it doesn’t really fit in with the political motivations of those in office. I hate to say it, but a thinking populace can be a very harmful thing to politicians in a democratic society. While I can’t prove that there’s some vast conspiracy by the man to keep us down, I think it’s reasonable to say that there’s very little, if any, incentive to get a more educated populace.
Plato touched on this in The Republic–the best leaders of a country aren’t the ones that cater to the vices of the people, which a democracy encourages outright. Rather, they are the ones that encourage virtue (the term should be understood loosely) even when it goes agains the public’s “interest.” I’d love to see more formal instruction in high schools that would pump out more informed citizens; I’ve been a proponent of a media analysis class being part of civic education programs for years. Unfortunately, reform like that would serve as a destabilizing force in society that those in power, for good reason, fear.
Comment by Jesse — December 16, 2005 @ 10:28
Just to let you know that I think the website is great and I wish you all of the best for the future. http://carisoprodol.gottaoh.com
Comment by Freddy — January 25, 2006 @ 06:30