What’s to be done with the divisiveness in American politics and political discourse? One answer is to join the fight, steak out a claim and shout down one’s adversaries—fight fire with fire. Another answer is to simply accept that “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” and not engage. But another approach is the concept of discussion as a civil and healthy interaction of ideas. Discussion can take two forms: dialogue and debate.
In dialogue, people engage in a free-flow of ideas. With dialogue people can think aloud or may not completely believe in the idea that they express at any given point. The parties open themselves up to change their own minds. In debate, people assume fixed ideological positions and engage opposing viewpoints with refutation and rebuttal. They seek to influence the opinion of a listening audience.
People generally prefer the term dialogue. Debate sounds adversarial and it should. Debate is adversarial. Debate is not mean-spirited, disrespectful, undisciplined and irrational. So much of what occurs on the shout down shows and talk radio programs would not meet my definition of debate. In her helpful book, The Debate Culture, socio-linguist Deborah Tannen criticizes the mental constructs that seeks to turn every intellectual pursuit into a competitive exercise. Not every question has two sides. Some have more and some have less. Though I agree with many of her observations, I still think debate serves a useful function if people understand it.
The purpose of debate is to provide a rigorous examination of ideas so that an audience can make up their minds. True debaters—from high school debate tournament teams to advocates before the Supreme Court—are actors in a drama in pursuit of truth. Their positions are constructions. That’s not to say disingenuous or fabrications. But the conventions of debate involve people taking positions and holding those positions for the duration of the debate. The goal is to provide as intelligent an engagement of the ideas as possible allowing observers of the debate (juries, judges, audiences) to make up their minds about what to believe and how to act. Debate, it should be kept in mind, is an intellectual methodology. Debate is a performed act of dialectic.
The differences between dialogue and debate deserve consideration that I will not give here. I will assert that there are times for debate and times for dialogue and leave it at that. I’m more interested in what makes dialogue and debate possible—the prerequisites of genuine discussion.
7 comments:
I appreciate the distinction that you've made between dialogue and debate, and reclaiming the nature of civilized debate.
"I’m more interested in what makes dialogue and debate possible—the prerequisites of genuine discussion."
I have some ideas about that, but I suspect that is the topic of Part 2. So, I will wait patiently to "dialogue" with you about it.
Debate with me the pros and cons of any issue pressing,
Let me weigh the sides and choose myself the point that’s most convincing.
Dialogue with me to teach and enlighten and open my mind to new directions,
While also remaining open to my input and additions to your own predilections.
But if your mind is set and you have already chosen your way,
Do not argue your point to me if you are not willing to let me have a say.
In a debate there can be two winners just as two great rivers can merge,
In a dialogue two ships can pass on the ocean and gently respond to each other’s surge.
But in an argument between angry minds where the passageways of thoughts are narrow - not wide,
I might as well stand alone on the shore and try to turn back the tide.
Thanks John and Greg.
Greg, I'm probably too picky about this but, I contend that debate is meant to be decided in favor of one side and not the other. The parties in the debate are not themselves intended to be persuaded by the other. They are both attempting to persuade a third party. If the potential for mutual persuasion (i.e., the merging of rivers) is there, I would label that dialogue. I'm not entirely sure why I think that distinction is necessary but, I do.
Andy, that's not picky at all...
I see your point. I would state that in most instances debate doesn't change either proponent's views, however, I view debate at the precursor to compromise between two sides with strongly held convictions. It's semantics, but I've always viewed dialogue as leading to agreement, debate leading to compromise.
(Sorry, I didn't mean for that last comment to be sent as anonymous. A little too quick on the buttons...)
Based upon what you guys are saying, does this mean that we would want to encourage more dialogue and less debate? I ask this based upon the fact that people in our culture seem to be more intent on convincing one another rather than listening to and understanding one another.
I realize, of course, that we will always have convictions worthy of debate...but perhaps we shouldn't feel like everything has to have that standard.
Debate alone is limiting if it is judged solely on whether it is successful in convincing a third party to choose a specific side. Dialogue, in my view, is the more intellectually challenging form of discourse because it implies an exchange of ideas between parties who are not necessarily trying to sell a specific point of view.
I say that debate is limiting because a willingness to listen to the other side is the only requirement for a good debate.
Dialogue is more stimulating to me because it requires both a willingness to listen as well as a willingness to consider changing or at least modifying a stance or belief.
As John pointed out, the common thread is a willingness to listen. He’s absolutely right-on that the problem currently defeating meaningful and effective debates and dialogue is that people are not willing to truly listen. They are too focused on convincing (pushing) their point of view to the complete exclusion and ignoring of other potentially useful input.
(By the way, I define listening as a much more complex process than hearing. Perhaps the real issue to discuss here is how to really listen…)
Post a Comment