I'm a fan of Dr. Deborah Tannen. She is a sociolinguist and has written several insightful, really practical books about conversation and communication. One of her books, The Argument Culture, examines the way we communicate in public -- in the media, in politics, in our courtrooms and classrooms.
She describes "the pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach anything we need to accomplish as a fight between two opposing sides -- urging us to regard the world in an adversarial frame of mind."
She notes the "point-counterpoint" approach on tv.
She notes that typical reporting requires a quote from both sides of the issue -- as though there are two and only two sides to any topic. In some cases, that leads to elevating a much less compelling view to an equal position, and in other cases, over-simplifying very complex issues by ignoring valid points (we just want BOTH sides!) when it would be most helpful to have all aspects brought forward.
Very interesting.
I recommend her books.
This "argument culture" and the implied need to be RIGHT (proving everyone else WRONG) seems to me to be an example of the universal application of competitiveness.
I wonder if you have seen any evidences of what I am calling injudicious competitiveness?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment