On Arguments

I cannot precisely remember when it happened, but there came a point at which I realized that not every argument is what it is actually about.

Growing up I suppose, when I saw an argument (or the rare times I was involved in one), it simply seemed like it was about the subject of the argument.  To be fair, to my recollection I never saw my parents argue in public or in the home (although knowing my father, I suspect they happened; the first time I remember them having one was when I was in my twenties); my arguments were all of the garden variety child and pre-teen version.

To be fair as well, I am not a very good arguer.  I do not enjoy conflict at all and actually will go great lengths to avoid it.  I had a brief stint in college arguing my positions, until I was told by my advisor that my "arguing" was really just assuming my positions were correct and then trying to overwhelm the opposition, the equivalent of mass frontal attacks:  costly, ineffective, and almost never achieving the objective.  It was at that point I simply gave up arguing and just started listening.

And maybe that was for the best:  in listening to those arguing, one heard without being blinded by the actual nature of the views of the arguers on the subject at hand.  And often times what they turned out to be arguing about was actually not the problem at all.

Take a very simple example:  Someone has a bad day at work and comes home in a foul mood (mind you, this has happened to other people.  Never me.  Nope, not once).  Something minor happens - a dog that is just a little crazy, some element of the house that is a bit off, even something like random coughing - and the horse, as they say, has left the barn.  "Why is it that the dog is ill-behaved/the dishes are always in the sink/you never go to the doctor when you are sick?" is launched, and usually not in a quiet tone of voice.  Things escalate quickly.

The reality, of course, is that the real issue is not any of the things in the home.  The real issue is at the job or the job itself, which for any number of reasons the individual feels they cannot address.  All they can do is funnel that frustration into another area, one they feel they can control.

A simplistic example, for sure.  But take that into any actual real world situation, and you will find the mechanisms of cause and action the same.  We just put better titles on it to make it sound more sophisticated.

At the risk of struggling to find something (relatively) non-controversial, take preservation of agricultural land.  One side argues that land owners should be free to do whatever they want with their land, including selling it.  The other side argues that land owners should be prevented from doing whatever they want with their land, including selling it,  because preserving it has greater value.  In reality, the land owners would quite likely be willing to preserve the land as it is as long as they could reasonably profit from it as if they were selling it.  The preservers want the land preserved, but (often) are not willing to pay the land owner the going rate for the land to preserve it. 

In reality, both sides want to benefit from the land - in different ways, but benefit from it. That is the real core of the discussion:  how do both sides derive equal benefits.  But that is not what it becomes about.  In point of fact it becomes about power:  the power to dispose of versus the power to control the disposition of.  Which becomes expensive, angry and seldom ends up with what either side actually wants. 

(To be clear, I believe in the rights of land holders.  I also believe that agricultural land should be preserved.  This should be a simple resolution in principle.  It looks a lot people that want the land preserved doing everything in their power to make sure the owners are compensated fairly - at going rates for land that can be developed - to preserve the land and everyone doing everything in their power to drop the property tax rates down significantly on such land to make it worth more to keep it as it is than develop it.)

This has become my starting point when I hear two sides arguing any more.  Sometimes - almost rarely anymore - the argument really is about the argument.  Most times though, the argument is not at all what is being huffed and puffed about, but rather something behind the words and blustering.

Find that - find the unspoken thing, the "dog that is not barking" - and look to that, even if no-one else will. That is where true disagreement lies, and that is where the best chance for truly resolving the issue is.