Dialogue or Polemics

Polemics, “the art or practice of arguing passionately and strongly for or against something”.  Dialogue, “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue with a view to reaching an amicable agreement.” Do you engage in polemics or dialogue?  If you say, dialogue, thank you, because frankly I’m sick of polemics.  Our national discourse is so full of polemics that I fear we will never be able to reach any kind of rational agreements about anything, ever again, on the political scene.  But that’s not really what worries me.  We’ve suffered polticial problems seemingly forever.  And I would guess that we will continue on that trajectory.

I worry more about how polemics affect our personal relationships.  To me, that’s the one place that we seem to have some personal power.  And yet, my observation is, that we don’t use that power very often. 

For instance, in my experience we often talk “at” people and not “to” them.  Then when we don’t get the response we want, we blame on it them.  I think it’s because of our mistaken notion that meaning is in words.  If we just choose the right words, we’ve done our part.  And if the listener doesn’t get our meaning, it’s their fault.  Well, that works if you don’t care about what outcome you get.

You see, meaning is in people and in context.  You have the meaning that you intend to communicate.  And they have the meaning that they make of your communications.  And neither will match without an agreement on context.  Then, when they don’t match,  which happens a lot, we have the basis to start our polemics.  After all, if we’ve chosen our words carefully and the listener doesn’t get what we’re saying, it can’t be our fault, can it?

It usually starts like this, “you said so and so”.  I say, “no, that’s not what I said”.  Then you say, “yes you did”.  And I say…well you’ve experienced this, so I don’t need to take any further. 

Some will claim it’s just semantics.  But it’s not just that.  It’s a matter of pragmatics.  Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics, which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning.

We cannot make common meaning of communications without agreement on the context of the conversation.  If the context is to win the point, we have polemics.  If the context is to reach agreement, we have dialogue.

Now I ask you, how often do you enter a conversation with a friend that turns into  polemics?  You know what I’m saying.  You say, “I think the state of Illinois would do better to elect a Republican governor”.  He says, “don’t be silly, a Democrat is the best choice”.  Will this turn into a dialogue or will you get trapped into a polemical argument that brings no agreement but damages a friendship?

If the context is to discuss the pros and cons of both parties, you might have a chance at dialogue.  If it’s to win your point, you have polemics.

Unfortunately for us, we love polemics.  Because we love winning our point.  I’ve never met a single person who wants to lose an argument.  I just wonder how much more we could do for ourselves and our communities if we agreed to dialogue more and argue less?  From world politics, like “bomb the Arabian peninsula”, to local issues, like “build new schools”, we are all sucked into winning our point.  Even though, our point of view may be wrong or at least not as right as another. 

Politics has been called the art of the possible.  In my view, the possible is becoming a smaller and smaller area of opportunity, the more we confuse polemics with dialogue.

So the next time you get into a heated discussion, take a deep breath, pause and ask yourself, “is this a dialogue or do I just want to win my point?”

Robert DeFilippis