Download Click here to SA 1 comments

Molly Warinsky
January 17, 2013
English 131, W13
Short Assignment 1
“Smashing heads does not open minds” says Deborah Tannen, author of “For
Argument's Sake: Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?” The article,
which was published in The Washington Post on March 15, 1998, discusses an unsettling
but all too common trend sweeping our media, companies, classrooms and day to day
interactions: “Everywhere we turn,” says Tannen, “there is evidence that, in public
discourse, we prize contentiousness and aggression more than cooperation and
conciliation.” That is, we as a society tend to look for excuses to argue over pretty much
anything. Long gone are the days of heated intellectual debates and criticism motivated
by true political passion. Nowadays, says Tannen, we witness “automated, ritualized
attacks”—where we’re arguing, well, for argument’s sake. Nice intro. Don’t forget to cite
your quotes, however [(author page #), generally, but just (page #) when it’s already clear
who the author is].
It’s this hostile social phenomenon that Tannen refers to as “argument culture.”
Such a culture assumes that the best form of negotiation, conversation, teaching or
learning is opposition, opposition, and more opposition. And we truly see it
everywhere—Tannen discusses multiple examples of how argument culture has
permeated her own life, from personal attacks during talk show appearances to research
opportunities thwarted by overly aggressive lawyers. Her slightly dramatic yet relatable
anecdotes reveal just how common this trend is, leading the reader to examine how the
antagonistic nature of society has effected his or her own experiences.
Tannen’s two strongest points examine argument culture rampant within and
promoted by the media and the educational sphere. These two aspects of society teach
citizens both implicitly and explicitly, consciously and unconsciously, how to interact
with one another and fit into a world full of diverse and varying viewpoints and ideas.
Tannen speaks of retired admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who withdrew as nominee for
Secretary of Defense after personal attacks were written about him in several news
stories. What does it say about our society that laws preventing slander and defamation
basically don’t apply to public figures, those who are the most vulnerable? That the
“game frame” approach rules modern journalism, automatically pitting people against
each another and manufacturing villains just to produce a “good” story? Never mind the
media; argument culture is as everyday as the academic environments preparing and
molding our young minds—Tannen references prevailing attitudes of opposition
facilitated and rewarded within high school history classes through on up to graduate
level courses. While it may appear that successful learning is going on when students
debate—look closer, says Tannen—and you’ll see that only a few students are
participating with watered down, intellectually bankrupt arguments. And is that really
learning at all?
Tannen’s article is effective in that it utilizes real life, everyday examples that
we’ve all witnessed at some point in order to illustrate the prevalence of argument
culture. Although these examples could flow together a bit more seamlessly, as they
sometimes seem to lack guiding transitions from one story to the next, they are presented
in a generally clear and direct fashion that drives Tannen’s point home every time.
Tannen’s article also does an excellent job of telling us why we should care about this
upsetting cultural trend. “Perhaps the most dangerous harvest of the ethic of aggression
and ritual fighting,” she states, “is an atmosphere of animosity that spreads like a fever.”
Every time fighting takes the place of cooperation, every time aggression substitutes for
understanding, people become alienated and human connection slowly withers. And what
about our ability to achieve intellectual, social, and political progress? It seems to me that
Tannen argues that respectful disagreements/true and rigorous academic discourse aren’t
just better for human interactions; they propel us forward.
Writer’s Memo
Although it’s never easy for me to start assignments (it always feels like such a
daunting task!) this one was slightly less intimidating due to the practice we had in class
discussing book reviews and then reading and commenting on ones we found on our
own. Nevertheless, I still had to push myself to just dive in. I started by reading the article
through a couple times just to get a good feel for it (I actually found the full text here,
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/argsake.htm). I took some time to pinpoint
Tannen’s main argument, looking to define certain terms she used (I specifically found
“argument culture”) and structuring my review around those aspects of the article. I then
asked myself what her most compelling points were, and used those as a jumping off
point for further discussion.
This assignment definitely felt different than the good old classic book report
from middle school. My high school classes really pushed me to analyze texts rather than
just explain them, but it’s still all too easy to fall into the summarizing trap when writing
a review of something. I’m still not sure if I avoided that completely here, but I did my
best to adopt an evaluative attitude. I felt especially drawn to this article because, being a
journalism major, I’m surrounded by argument culture in the field. The “game frame”
approach, where two stories or aspects of a story are presented in a fiercely oppositional
manner for interest (and also to avoid bias) dominates modern journalism. Especially in
the “lower” publications like tabloids, where it’s clear that tearing people down seems to
sell—regardless of the ethical implications. I’m going off on a tangent, but I guess this
article inspired me to continue to strive for integrity in my writing. I’ve always been an
advocate of the truth, but I believe the distinction lies in how you present something.
Molly,
It is clear that you have a very strong sense of style and voice and your writing. Your
review also accomplishes what a review generally should: you’ve given readers an idea
of what to expect from Tannen’s piece. Indeed, it is your seeming awareness of your
audience and its needs that makes this piece most effective. What you might consider is
trying to elevate your prose style a bit. Seeing as how this piece is put together quite well,
I want to challenge you to push yourself further in terms of developing an academic
voice. In terms of content, try to really get at the nuances of Tannen’s argument,
especially in terms of stakes. You also place her examinations of media and academia
together. Are the two inter-related or just facets of the same phenomenon? You are a
strong stylistic writer; just try to dig a little deeper in your analysis.