As humans, we sometimes deem it necessary to argue in order to get our points across and help our rivals come to a better understanding of life, or at least life as we view it. But more often than not, the argument ends with each side shouting obscenities about the other's mother. Deborah Tannen analyzes this approach to winning arguments in her article “For Argument's Sake: Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?” In the article, Tannen shows that arguments rarely lead to an understanding, but rather that an argument becomes less about the topic at hand and more about proving the opposing side wrong. As she puts it, “Smashing heads does not open minds” (47). And although the article itself is about the uselessness of arguing, Tannen writes her article in an almost satirical way of arguing with the reader, trying to prove that she is correct in her ideals. She does this by telling a story in which some form of argument takes place and then reflects on it to show the weaknesses of the argument, using hefty language in order to appeal to a more intellectual audience. But an extensive arsenal of large words isn't the only method Tannen uses to win over her audience; she also uses various strategies to appeal to the audience's sense of logic.
Tannen quotes the poet Charles Simic who says, “There are moments in life when true invective is called for, when it becomes an absolute necessity, out of a deep sense of justice, to denounce, mock, vituperate, lash out, in the strongest possible language” (47). Appealing to the reader's logic, she shows that she isn't the only one who has noticed the human need to argue This is used positively in her article because it allows her to set the basis for her entire subject. In a sense she uses the quote to say “This is true,” and then questions it as if to say, “but consider this!” However, it could be better. Charles Simic is not a household name, and can lead the reader to question the truth behind the quote. All right, he is a poet, so what? If Tannen did not tell her audience any background on Simic then the reader might not have known anything at all about this random man.
All right, so Tannen knows how to quote somebody. Anyone can do that. The real challenge is to continue appealing to the reader while still keeping them interested enough to finish the article. Tannen attempts to pull this off through the use of anecdotes. The first part of her article employs the use of a story about a talk show she appeared on. In this example, a man was asked on the show to argue with Tannen about the points she made in her recently released book. Tannen reminisces about the reaction of the crowd and the man:
“I had hardly managed to finish a sentence or two before the man threw his arms out in gestures of anger, and began shrieking-briefly hurling accusations at me, and then railing at length against women. The strangest thing about his hysterical outburst was how the audience reacted: They turned vicious-not attacking me or him but the other guests: women who had come to talk about problems they had communicating with their spouses” (46).
The crowd instinctively took the winning side of the argument; not necessarily agreeing with the man, but simply choosing to be on his side due to his overall control of the conversation. They could have just sat idly, watched, and formed their own opinion, but the addictive adrenaline rush one gets from arguing was too much for the audience to pass on. As if arguing were a drug, they just had to have a hit.
Tannen uses another example story to support her thesis from yet another talk show. A caller called in and asked why they one time lied to a smoker by saying they had asthma in order to get the smoker to discard of his cigarette. Tannen replied that there was nothing wrong with the caller's strategy, and immediately afterward, a second caller claimed that the strategy was self destructive. The difference between this story and the previous is that, through the first caller's actions, Tannen is able to show that problems can be dealt with without arguing; though the caller lied, the situation was handled more peacefully.
A third story used involves the use of real, common work place conversations that Tannen used as research for her upcoming book. In order to use taped conversations as research, legal issues needed to be sorted out with the companies. However, whenever either the companies or Tannen consulted attorneys for the legal issues, an agreement was never settled. Tannen uses this story to show that principals must be used in settling agreements. There has to be a certain amount of trust between both sides to settle agreements peacefully, otherwise arguments will arise and the agreement will never be settled.
Tannen switches her focus to students and teachers in another anecdote. She tells the reader about a teacher who gained immense satisfaction from seeing her students debate about a given topic. Tannen quickly refutes her satisfaction saying:
“On closer inspection, you notice that only a few students are participating in the debate; the majority of the class is sitting silently. And the students who are arguing are not addressing subtleties, nuances or complexities of the points they are making or disputing. They don't have that luxury because they want to win the argument-so they must go for the most dramatic statements they can muster” (51).
In this story, the students don't argue in order to come to a better understanding; they argue for the sake of winning the argument. Thus the argument is useless and time is wasted on a topic that never gets settled.
Another major strategy in Tannen's article is using repetition. The word “ritual” comes into play several times throughout the article. Tannen's use of repetition may be the most effective weapon in the arsenal she uses to win over her audience. After each story the term “ritual” is used to remind the reader of Tannen's main topic. The reader can now reflect upon the story and see how the central theme is applied. The reader can see the repeated pattern of arguing and the human response to it and Tannen can now move to her next story with the idea fresh in the reader's mind. The repetition appeals to the reader's emotions through not only the reflection on the story, but that the reader can see this “ritual” take place in their own lives and then take a minute to look at the big picture.
All of Tannen's strategies serve the purpose of trying to get the reader to a point of trust, to get them to say, “She knows what she is talking about, her argument is more than likely legitimate.” Without these stories the reader would have to trust her based on what she says about herself. Through anecdotes the reader can tell that Tannen has experience in seeing her topic take form and can therefore speak freely on the topic. With each anecdote her writing appears to become less formal as though she feels that by the last one the reader will have enough insight to trust her. Both anecdotes and repetition attempt to get inside the reader's mind and continually make them think of the main point of her argument; to make them see each point as logical and legitimate.
Oh, crafty Tannen! We see your ploys and commemorate you on taking control of our minds through words alone. What you didn't plan on was a bunch of freshman college students analyzing your work. The truth is out, and soon your methods will come back to hurt you. We are the writers of the future, and your tactics only give us a broader knowledge of techniques to capture our audiences. We were your slaves for a day, but before you breathe your last breath, you will be ours.
Works Cited
Tannen, Deborah. “For Argument's Sake: Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?” 75 Arguments an Anthology. Ed. Alan Ainsworth. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 46-52.
