Argument 2 - offence as defence

In Part 1, I explored my perplexing fear reaction about arguing with someone on social media.

Well, I was not really arguing, I was just trying to engage. I asked people questions about their ideas. I was trying to step out of my own bubble.

But I failed completely. Several times. I wasn't really expecting a reasoned argument, but I was expecting some sort of answers to simple questions about their views. However, asking questions was seen as attack; my questions were met with outrage and offence.

I'm sure you've seen it too.

Fun? For some... Source

What gets called an 'argument' these days is actually a fight to hold 'territory', to defend firmly held opinions, and to damage the other person as much as possible. No-one ever, ever, ever modifies their idea or changes their mind. People fling words at each other like a food fight. They hurl soggy information (simplistic memes), rotten comments (outrage and offence) and stale explanations ('that's what my grandparents did'). Simply pour over some vinaigrette of arrogance: 'Well, you have no idea', and a garnish of insults: 'Only an idiot could think that' and you have a mess no one wants to clean up.

When and why did my much-loved calm and respectful argument about differing ideas deteriorate into a word fight to defend territory?

After the intensity of multiple minor online conflicts faded, I found myself thinking about the meaning of the word argument.

Argument:

♦️ statements and reasoning in support of a proposition or causing belief in a doubtful matter, from Latin arguere 'make clear, make known, prove'. Sense passed through 'subject of contention' (1590s) to 'a quarrel' (by 1911).

That last word, quarrel, jumps out:

♦️ angry dispute, from Latin querella 'complaint, accusation; lamentation'. Sense of 'contention between persons' (1570s).

Hold on: quarrel means the exact opposite of argument! An argument is between two propositions (ideas), while a quarrel is between two people. The first describes 'making clear', the second describes 'disputing'. 

What word could I use to reassure others that I just wanted some 'old-fashioned' respectful reasoning in support of a proposition? What would be a useful replacement for the lost meaning of argument and argue. Something engaging, not threatening.

Debate? Discuss? Explore? A bit too vague. Something that keeps the focus on 'reasoning in support' of ideas. I found expound, exposit, exegete. 'Hi S, I would love to hear you expound your idea further.' Yeah, nah.

It seems not. We've lost the really useful word argument through the meaning transition from 'reasoned statements of support' to 'a quarrel'.

And quarrel we do.

Plato said 'ignorance', not me. Source

In fact, the very idea of examining or justifying a point of view is considered inappropriate in some families and social groups. The questions, 'Why do I think this?' or 'What is my rationale for this position?' can be seen as heresy or treason. I'm not just talking cults and politics - fashionable but unquestionable views can find their way into any social group. (Try asking someone under twenty-five why they support same-sex marriage and I doubt they could talk through their reasons or rebut any logical counter-arguments - it's just the 'correct' position to adopt in their age group.)

We all inherit, absorb and are taught opinions as we grow up, from our family and friends, through our formal education, and as part of 'packages' of ideas that we are given or choose (i.e. an ideology or religion). We don't reason our way to each point of view we hold. Our inherited opinions can remain completely unexamined for life. Even in higher education, students often accept the assumptions and views of a field of study without question, and what passes for academic 'argument' is merely repeating the accepted orthodoxies.

The art and enjoyment of (genuine*) argument is found in small pockets of society only.

I knew that not everyone is comfortable with examining ideas or skilled at logical critical thinking; it is a specific set of skills you are taught and encouraged to use if you are lucky, and continue to refine through life. I know that not everyone enjoys a (genuine) argument like me.

So, I wasn't surprised that asking questions didn't result in robustly reasoned arguments. But I was stunned at how badly it all went.

I hadn't understood the 'rules' of quarrelling. But I soon realised there was a lot going on.

I worked out quickly that my opening question was perceived as the first salvo in a battle. 

'Why do you think x?', coming out of the blue as it did, was interpreted as, 'How could you possibly think x, you complete moron'? 

Perhaps they thought I was trying to trap, mock, or humiliate them. Maybe a history of angry disagreement has left them trigger shy. Perhaps asking questions is never neutral to them.

I also tried 'What are your reasons for thinking x?' and even less direct, 'What are you concerned about?' No more successful.

My body's fear reaction had been a warning! I was unknowingly entering a battle. Belatedly, I had learned the first rule of quarrelling: asking is an attack.

I felt a bit frustrated searching around for less confronting questions. But my strongest feeling was irritation about them taking offence.

Taking offence is an extremely potent act in a conversation.

For most of us, knowing that we have offended or upset another person is sufficient for us to stop what we are saying. This is the usual social response, an interpersonal instinct that rests on empathy and desire for mutual good-will. We (usually) don't like to hurt other people, something we understand as either empathy or enlightened self-interest (i.e. we don’t want to be hurt back.)

I didn't want to hurt anyone. I didn't like the feeling of upsetting them.

However, I felt they were not playing fair. 

How GOOD is offence! Source

The saying "The best defence is a good offence" applies in areas ranging from sports to military strategy. It means that going on the attack (offence) instead of waiting to deal with what might come at you (defence) will stop your opposition organising their own attack (offence), giving you an advantage. It is one of many strategies in sport and war - combining defence and offence (attack).

This saying works in a quarrel in a somewhat twisted form: taking offence (getting upset) is a very good defence (against explaining yourself or thinking clearly.) 

Getting offended justified not having to explain their opinion, because: offended.

Some immediately declared a violation of their right to free speech.** 'I have a right to my own opinion!' and 'We have freedom of speech in Australia!'

Um, keep your opinion. It's your right, sure.

However, it's a perversion of an important principle to get offended when you are asked to explain your point of view.

This is really unfair for two reasons. Our natural social civility ensures we (usually) don't persist if someone gets upset about a topic. This makes it a successful ploy to avoid any actual discussion on the topic. Secondly, no one is attacking anyone's 'rights' by asking them a question, even much tougher ones than I did.

So, the second rule of quarrelling is taking offence is the best defence for your point of view.

But why is asking a question seen as an attack in the first place?

I think this happens because many people see their opinions as part of themselves. It's not that they HAVE opinions; for some, people ARE their opinions.

Some people wrap their ideas and opinions into the core of their identity; rather than seeing ideas as neutral 'things' that a person holds and can pick up and put down. We all do this to some extent; but some much more than others.

Because in one way, ideas are not neutral. Our ideas are situated in our personal history and our ongoing relationships with family and friends. For most of us, our ideas are a part of our social 'place'; we share ideas as social tools for belonging in relationships which are important to us. Our opinions and points of view express how we see ourselves belonging in our social world. Given this role, our ideas are not easily or lightly changed.

The unexamined ideas we all inherit or imbibe from our families or friends are part of belonging to our 'tribe'. Therefore, disagreement may not just feel like a threat to someone's self-concept, but a threat to their social network and their view of themselves in the world. 

If people see their opinions as part of their identity, then questions become a personal threat. You are not asking about facts or evidence; you are attacking their very being.

I HAVE the RIGHT tick! Source

The ubiquitous offence I saw in my online 'arguments' suggests this is what was going on.

It's hard to put myself into their shoes as I don't find questions themselves threatening. For sure, I have plenty of unexamined opinions. But in fact, no one asked me why I thought what I do. I was just wrong. Their ideas seemed to have a big 'I am right' tick and the reason they are is right has never been considered. 

Successful engagement between people who disagree requires they can all comfortably hold their ideas 'lightly' and outside their sense of self (at least temporarily). 

A (genuine) argument requires both people to see ideas as important to identity, but neutral, and to value reasoning and argument as making those ideas better and clearer. The focus is on the ideas, and on making things clearer.

In contrast, a quarrel results when ideas are held fiercely as deeply personal and part of social belonging. The focus is on the person. If you perceive you and your whole 'tribe' are being attacked, getting upset and offended probably seems quite reasonable - it's a justified personal defence.

And that's what happened to me. I was immediately seen as a nasty person attacking other people for no reason. I felt required to 'back down' - to desist from my awful unwarranted attack - when I hadn't tried to hurt of offend anyone. I couldn't make my intention clear.

This partially explained my sense of things being unfair. I felt misunderstood and maligned. I felt frustrated and irritated that something I thought should be simple had gone so badly. 

This morning, I noticed my very first quarreller, S, had posted another distorted claim.

I left her post unanswered.

But I kept on thinking about what else felt unfair about my experience. Even more on arguments to come!

Footnotes

* I found I had to write genuine each time I wrote argument. When I left out genuine or real, it read as if I meant 'an angry dispute' instead. The original meaning of argument is so well and truly lost. Please give me a small moment in my word grief.

** In fact, Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights; political speech is protected from criminal prosecution through common law.

Images, all used under Creative Commons Licences (CC BY-ND-SA)

• Foodfight: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Food_Fight
• Plato quote: https://ifunny.co/picture/most-people-are-not-just-comfortable-in-their-ignorance-but-YyBUelrk3 
• Offence defence: https://www.quotemaster.org/Defence#&gid=1&pid=10
• Big tick: https://ssociologos.com/2012/09/26/solucion-del-test-de-sociologia-5/