Embracing and Benefiting from a Climate of Dialogue

Melissa Olephant

     The authors Deborah Tannen and Edward Tenner each differently tackle the question of how we approach the process of inquiry in their respective works, “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue” and “Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead.”   Tannen “examines the social, political, and emotional consequences of treating discussions as battles to be won or lost” (Tannen 600).  By definition, this black and white version of inquiry contrasts to the more open-minded approach espoused by Edward Tenner in which he takes “a very expansive view” to describe our interaction “with the products of technological innovation” (Tenner 633).   Tenner’s cycle of intensity-disaster-precaution-vigilance promotes a much more thorough analysis of any discussion, issue, or problem (Tenner 641).  Tannen’s “argument culture, with its tendency to approach issues as a polarized debate,” clearly does not enable Tenner to perform his full-blown and flexible “look back” and “look ahead” (Tenner 634).  However, if we embrace Tannen’s proposal that it may be “time to question our glorification of debate as the best, if not the only, means of inquiry,” we can open up a crucial and broad climate of dialogue that will only mean a brighter future for technology (Tannen 626).

     A careful analysis of Tannen’s excerpt from her book The Argument Culture reveals that the culture of critique precludes the technological “ look back” and “look ahead” performed by Tenner (Tenner 634).  The adversarial approach prevents the level of inquiry that Tenner requires, since people just tear down what others present with their “inclination to regard criticism and attack as the best if not the only type of rigorous thinking” (Tannen 601).  If we automatically “approach issues as a polarized debate,” how can we possibly take “time for any reflection on the best course for the future,” as Tenner promotes?  (Tannen 601, Tenner 633)  The result is that the adversarial approach paralyzes us from being able to accept Tenner’s challenge to “break out of ruts and change our thinking” (Tenner 633).  The culture of critique hinders us from exploring all options, which could cause us to miss important opportunities and innovations. 

     An obvious and timely illustration of how the culture of critique can hold back technological progress could be observed during the recent New Jersey gubernatorial race.  Each candidate ran an extremely nasty campaign that involved bashing his opponent on several different levels.  Instead of spending time and money discussing relevant issues, like their ideas for solutions to such technological disasters as pollution, the men just attacked each other’s characters.  Minimal useful information was provided to the voters regarding the candidates’ platforms on the future of technology in the state.   The numerous attack ads demonstrated that “instead of enhancing reputations, going into public services now threatens them” (Tannen 619).  Unfortunately, the candidates did little to show voters the real reasons why the candidates felt they were qualified to be governor or how they could help solve New Jersey’s problems.  Voters were not provided with full information about where the candidates really stood or how they hoped to help the state and its people.  Unfortunately, this type of election is pervasive and increasingly common all across our country.  If politicians spent more time and money on analyzing issues and trying to find solutions, instead of mudslinging, technological progress could be made at a more rapid pace.     

     Tannen herself succinctly points out why the adversarial approach contradicts Tenner’s process of inquiry.  She differentiates between the “need to make others wrong” in the culture of critique versus “reading something with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it” (Tannen 610).  The latter is a critical component of Tenner’s cycle of intensity-disaster-precaution-vigilance which he uses to inquire into our relationship with technology (Tenner 641).  The tunnel vision of the adversarial approach rules out the possibility of fully analyzing and learning from Tenner’s “revenge effects,” the “unintended negative consequences” of technology (Tenner 633).  The frightening implication of this narrow-minded tactic is that we risk not learning from our mistakes, which could hamper our advancements in technology.  We must remain open-minded enough to admit that even though we disagree with something, we can still learn from it, improve upon it, and help society progress.       

     Ironically, the controversial topic of technology’s effects on our lives is itself polarizing.  Numerous articles have been written discussing whether or not technology hurts our lives.  Tenner’s revenge effects that “unfold around us every day – in the form of traffic jams, for instance, and as online spam” illustrate the dangers of technology (Tenner 633).  If we embrace the culture of critique, we simply take the opposite view and assert that technology benefits us.  However, if we are willing to evaluate this debate with an open mind, we create an opportunity to learn from our mistakes and continue on a path of progress.  We should accept Tannen’s suggestion that “if researchers come up with different findings, they can engage in a dialogue” (Tannen 613).  For example, we can choose to assert that cell phone use can cause cancer.   On the other hand, we can opt to explore alternatives to making cell phones safer, so that we may continue to make advances in this area.

     Furthermore, after using a critical eye to analyze the adversarial approach, we must realize that our deep-rooted culture of critique can easily defeat its purpose of promoting “rigorous thinking” (Tannen 601).  Our inclination to debate immediately, rather than question and evaluate, seems foolish if our goal is to obtain knowledge.  Seeing things as only black or white is a very narrow-minded approach which could be very disheartening and disappointing to many who are seeking to learn.  For example, Tannen notes that some students get so turned off by the “atmosphere of critique” in graduate school that they drop out of school (Tannen 609).  Clearly, this puts an abrupt end to their intellectual pursuit.  This could lead to an important lost opportunity for our society.  Perhaps one of these students would have been the next person to have made a major contribution to the future of technology.  What if one of these students was the individual who had “the ability to recognize bad surprises early enough to do something about them” that might have helped save us from global warming or the avian flu? (Tenner 656)   Our technological future simply cannot be as promising if we create disillusionment among some of our best and brightest students.  Therefore, the implication is that we must follow Tannen’s suggestion to “put a stop to the adversarial paradigm” and to diversify, so that we can find “more than one path to the goal we seek” (Tannen 616). 

     If we succeed in “moving from debate to dialogue,” we can create a more optimistic and productive future for technology (Tannen 625).  We must “overcome our bias toward dualism,” in order to allow room for all different approaches to promote intellectual inquiry (Tannen 623).  Tannen herself recognizes that “it is time to question our glorification of debate as the best, if not the only, means of inquiry” (Tanen 626).  The realization that “fitting ideas into a particular camp requires you to oversimplify them” is an important epiphany.  This oversimplification stops us from moving forward and finding new ideas, because we would be spending our time merely defending or attacking the last idea. Also, Tenner’s multi-step methodical approach to technological problems defies oversimplification.   We need to examine issues fully, instead of just debating them, in order to come up with the best solutions.   If we concur with Tenner’s view that technology “is evolving and responding,” we must conclude that a climate of dialogue will create the type of intellectual environment conducive to this process (Tenner 634). 

     Another reason that a climate of dialogue will help technology is that a non-combative type of exchange will invite more people to participate and contribute.  Importantly, Tannen asserts that the adversarial style has a tendency “to appeal initially to more men than women in the Western cultural context” (Tannen 607).  The gender bias that is pervasive in the culture of critique would have negative effects on the future of technology, since women would be reluctant to offer their thoughts.  We cannot make as much technological progress if we are excluding half of the population.  However, if we diversify our thinking and find “more than one path to the goal we seek,” we can offer opportunities for everyone to partake in the discussion.  This all-inclusive approach will be the most productive for the future of technology, because people of both sexes will be likely to respond “with creativity” to our problems (Tenner 633).  

     A common denominator of Tannen’s proposal of a climate of dialogue and Tenner’s “look back” and “look ahead” to improve technology is creativity.  Tannen proposes that in our quest for “more varied – and more constructive ways of expressing opposition and negotiating disagreement,” “we need to use our imaginations and ingenuity” (Tannen 627).  Creativity is equally crucial to Tenner’s analysis of “the way that human beings interact with the products of technological innovation,” since he takes such an expansive view that brings together diverse subjects (Tenner 633).  If we think creatively, instead of argumentatively, we can use our imaginations to create endless possibilities for the future of technology.  Market researchers are a prime example of how an open-minded approach to gaining knowledge can lead to technological progress.  They conduct focus groups among consumers, so products can be improved in various ways to satisfy people’s wants and needs.  One of the researchers’ main tasks is to take the information he or she obtains from the sessions and think of novel ways to improve existing products.  For example, Apple came out with the i-pod.  The market researchers’ studies led to further innovations, resulting in the mini-i – pod and then the i-pod nano.  This illustrates Tannen’s important point that if we strictly spend our time debating and attacking, we can easily miss out on the valuable insights gained from original research (Tannen 627).  We cannot risk this oversight if we want to make the most of our technological future.  We must embrace all research and analytical tools and frameworks to ensure that “disinformation and distortion” do not result (Tannen 626).  An expansive and creative view will open up a wide range of possibilities for technological advancement.  

     Importantly, Tannen’s recognition that the argument culture is wrong, because “it implies that only one framework can apply, when in most cases many can” opens the door to an essential climate of dialogue in which Tenner’s approach easily fits.  We must enthusiastically embrace Tannen’s suggestion to use “creativity to find ways to blunt the most dangerous blades of our argument culture” (Tannen 627).  If we do so, we avoid restricting ourselves to examining only the black and white of an issue.  Other approaches, such as Tenner’s, add the important gray area that is necessary to analyze any issue fully.  Within this gray area, it is possible that we can even find more “silver linings” (Tenner 636).  This climate of dialogue will create an important intellectual environment in which we can replace an eagerness to criticize with an eagerness to analyze.  This all-encompassing approach will allow technology to have its most optimistic future.  This transformation will embrace a wide variety of approaches, including Tenner’s, so that we can create the most effective relationship with technology.