Something odd happened the other night: I got into a real argument with someone. I don't mean a conversation, or a dialogue, but an argument. And it felt really peculiar.
Me and this woman I know started off talking about something or other. We were at a small gathering at my nephew's house. We'd both had some wine (which I just typo'd as "wind" by the way, a phenomenon I briefly wrote about the other day) and we started to disagree when the woman made a declarative statement about being able to understand things that happened hundreds of years ago. I said that she could understand those things from the context of the present and that, therefore, all of our understanding of other places and other times was incomplete and approximate. I compared trying to explain things to someone from another time/place to trying to explain blue to a blind person.
Well, that launched us into a full-fledged argument: point, counter-point. Attack, parry. Scan for weakness, exploit. Techniques trotted out. Logic and emotion enmeshed. Listening for opportunity, not for understanding. All the things we do when we argue. About five minutes into this, it occurred to me how unpleasant it had all become. But we both kept at it: pushing whatever buttons we could find to gain advantage. The argument defused when I walked away, aware I was becoming too angry and in danger of losing my head.
I've been thinking about how sharply this contrasts with how I normally handle conflicts. There were several elements of the situation that led to its escalation, but the one that sticks out most prominantly is our unwillingness to grant one another any access to the truth: black/white; yes/no; for/against. Polarized. Unyielding.
It wasn't her "fault," nor was it mine...we were locked into something we'd both created, and unable to get out.
Like Dylan said 40 plus years ago:
It's a restless hungry feeling
That don't mean no one no good,
When ev'rything I'm a-sayin'
You can say it just as good.
You're right from your side,
I'm right from mine.
We're both just one too many mornings
An' a thousand miles behind.
A restless, hungry feeling...
Tom, thank you for this helpful post. Much appreciated. It has my mind and heart questioning with you; why are we "unwillingness to grant one another any access to the truth"?
Posted by: Michael | July 05, 2005 at 06:27 PM
Why do I get the feeling this argument was a lot more intense than the "Jeter Debate" you had in CT a few weeks ago?
Great Dylan lyrical usage BTW.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 05, 2005 at 07:05 PM
Well here's a female perspective to add to the mix...
My first thought was that many of us, if not all, tend to revert to past familial behavior traits when we enter into arguments or confrontations.You know, one of those retro flashes that overcomes us when we crave acceptance for convictions. Eventually, everyone is right. There is no wrong and it is all truth.
I believe confrontation is an art.
violette
Posted by: violette | July 05, 2005 at 07:13 PM
Michael, I think the moment I enter into this kind of interaction, regardless of the other person's gender, I'm onto a path that loses sight of its own ground...the point is no longer anything but the argument.
Now, I also believe this woman's premise was wrongheaded, even today. But I was unable to allow her to be right...at one moment she accused me of "not listening" to her...this was correct, but incomplete, we were not listening to one another...and I was unwilling to acknowledge the accuracy of her charge because I knew she'd never reciprocate.
violette, in my experience, the art of confrontation is lost in the heat of argument; replaced by the art of war.
Yes, Jeremy, this was a little more serious than the Jeter incident, for sure...and that's why Dylan's words captured the moment for me.
Posted by: Tom | July 05, 2005 at 07:33 PM
Hi Tom
No argument from here, even I though don't agree.
v
Posted by: violette | July 05, 2005 at 08:04 PM
violette, I remember learning about confrontation as a therapist in training, very different from argument; standing in an entirely other place.
Posted by: Tom | July 05, 2005 at 08:56 PM
Great post to which I have all kinds of random associations. My mind hops to Monty Python... I'ld like to have an arguement... It stumbles across the old ideals of thesis, antithesis and synthesis... and I stop to think about what has happened in the political sphere that we presenting opposing viewpoints in an effort to find common ground is a lost art.
What does this all mean? I'm not sure. I guess we need to look at the art of argumentation from some sort of historical context.
Posted by: Aldon Hynes | July 06, 2005 at 04:01 PM