On Argument
Societal divisions broaden in a modern Western culture that is increasingly politically polarized. Contemporary approaches to argument exacerbate rather than resolve conflict. They can be improved by reviving lost debate etiquette and by integrating insights from cognitive linguistics, reasoned dialogue, and psychoanalytically-driven communication theory. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) provide a valuable lens through which to analyze the role of language in communication. Their work revolutionized the collective understanding of language by demonstrating how many of the cognitive pillars erected in the mind are structured by metaphor.
One of the most pervasive metaphors in discourse is the metaphor of Argument as War. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) showcase how arguments are conceptualized as battles to be won or lost, with each party seeking to defeat the other through subtle persuasion or forceful intimidation. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) suggest that we “attack positions”, “defend stances”, and “aim for victory” in order to “conquer the opponent”. While the war metaphor may seem appropriate in some contexts, it inevitably invokes an adversarial psychodrama that transforms a debate forum into a battleground, discouraging cooperation, collaboration, or open-mindedness. When arguments are framed as battles, participants are incentivized to foreclose on their ideals and exploit weak points in their opposition; the focus shifts away from why one’s idea is right toward why the opposing idea is wrong, and often ventures into the realm of why the opposition is evil for possessing their idea.
Lakoff and Johnson suggest that a metaphorical reframing of argument may elicit more constructive dialogue, proposing the alternative: Argument as Dance. The prioritization suddenly becomes finding an attunement to the counterpart and responding to their movement, or making one first in curiosity to how they may react. This seems a more productive exchange, fostering a culture of engagement that emphasizes education and adaptation over victory and conquest. The dynamic of conflict becomes one in which both parties work together toward greater understanding.
Seo's (2021) RISA framework—Respect, Information, Safety, and Accountability—echoes the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and modernizes it. He offers a structured approach to managing disagreements, suggesting that effective arguments aren’t about silencing opposition or demanding acquiescence to an ideology. Instead, effecting arguments hold sway—they influence others by offering rational, respectful, and well-structured points.
Seo’s (2021) approach to argumentation also challenges the “win-at-all-costs” mentality, advocating for arguments that are cooperative rather than combative. A key principle of his framework is the concept of “building bridges” through argumentation. He suggests that, rather than focusing on the flaws or contradictions in the other person’s arguments, effective debaters should seek shared values, using these points as stepping stones to move a conversation forward. Seeking mutual understanding and building on areas of agreement, yields more fruitful, less antagonistic exchanges. Arguments often arise from differing perceptions, emotional investments, or cognitive biases. Acknowledging these factors and integrating a commitment to self-reflection can help individuals approach argument with a degree of humility and openness, which is key to preventing entrenched positions from descending into deeper divides. Fittingly, this is where the Head in Ass metaphor is derived.
Both texts stress three essential components to engaging in effective argument. 1) Active listening: arguments fail when parties are too focused on formulating rebuttals or interrupting flow, rather than understanding the present speaker’s perspective and asking clarifying questions. 2) Emotion regulation: reducing the intensity of disagreements can promote rational discourse and preserve the scope of the issues at hand. 3) Common ground: Referencing shared values or experiences can help create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. In polarized environments, people may feel alienated from those who hold differing views. The identification of shared goals, basic human values, or mutual concerns can help bridge the gap.
Improving arguments is not about eradicating disagreement, but about making space for different perspectives to be heard and understood. A shift in argumentative modality could be the key to finding common ground and creating a more cohesive, respectful society. By adopting more cooperative, reflective, and thoughtful approaches to argumentation, disagreements can lead to growth and understanding rather than division and hostility. It begins, like most things, on the interpersonal level, in private discourse, and may then expand to the public sociological forum.
References:
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Seo, B. (2021). Good Arguments. Yale University Press.
