St. Nicholas punching Arius as the Council of Nicea, 325 AD
I’ve been talking about Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (you can read my first post here). It’s been an eye-opener, seeing how (largely unconscious) cultural metaphors can shape the very way we think about topics.
The very first conceptual metaphor they discuss is: “ARGUMENT IS WAR.”
They back this up with the following phrases: (pg 4)
“Your claims are indefensible.”
“He attacked every weak point in my argument.”
“His criticisms were right on target.”
“I’ve never won an argument with him.”
This is how we speak of arguments. We don’t think we’re talking metaphorically, the way we would if we said something colorful like, “Man, I lost that debate big-time. I was Bambi, and he was Godzilla.”
But our unconscious metaphors are powerful, and they put limits on how we think about certain concepts. If we think argument is war (or similar to war), even subconsciously, then we think in terms of winners and losers. We think in terms of weapons and tactics. We think in terms of winning at all costs.
We certainly don’t think in terms of vulnerability, humility, and opening oneself up to the possibility of learning something new.
That’s why a person can be very educated, have witnessed or been a part of many debates and arguments, and still have a narrow, unchangeable set of views. I’m not just talking to conservatives, here. I’ve seen it from friends from both sides of the aisle.
Even before I started reading Metaphors We Live By, I’d been wondering if there was anything worthwhile in ‘winning the argument’ or ‘defeating our opponents.’ Especially in the sense of Christian apologetics (or worse, doctrinal debates between Christians).
I’d been wondering if all this verbal conquest and victory and domination wasn’t just as much a tool of Empire as physical conquest and domination were.
I’d been wondering whether it ever changed people’s hearts, or whether it just engendered enmity.
What if we could look at argument through different eyes?
What if we could see an argument, not as a war, but as a dance? (pg 4)
What if we could be grateful to the person we’re arguing with for taking the time to talk to us?
What if we could view an argument as a journey?
Could an argument be a path to travel from our current disagreement and separation to a place where we understand each other, even if we don’t agree?
Could an argument take us to a place where we understand each other’s positions much better than we did before?
That would require humility.
That would require that we lay down our need to be seen as the smartest person in the room.
That would require that we lay down our false certainty, and admit that we may not understand everything … even in areas of faith, which are deeply personal.
That journey requires patience, on the part of both parties.
It won’t work if somebody’s trying to “win.”
It won’t work unless both parties are listening, not thinking of their next riposte.
That journey requires that we re-humanize our opponents.
Argument isn’t war. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
But we who were raised to glorify warfare, to think in terms of conquest, have made the very exchange of wisdom a form of violence. The opportunity to learn has become an opportunity for ego-gratification and domination.
But it doesn’t have to be that way.