Tannen vs. Graff

Amanda’s idea that technology is hindering society’s ability to argue correctly is a valid and interesting point. As the first digital generation, we are used to petty Facebook arguments between teenage girls and snippets of disputes on CNN. While both portray vastly different types of disagreements, neither provides accurate instruction on how to debate in a considerate, successful way.

In Tannen’s essay, she spoke of the importance of word choice, and how as a society we have employed war metaphors as a descriptive tool to define key parts of arguments, thus assigning them a negative connotation and creating a sort of fear of any kind of conflict. Graff agrees, saying that fostering civil arguments in an educational environment is essential to prepare students for life in the real world, and those in collegiate settings now are at a serious disadvantage because argument has become a sort of cultural taboo.

Though I may have limited experience in the real world, I can say with relative certainty that there’s hardly ever a situation in which a romantic harmony exists and everyone in a group agrees on everything. So therefore if we as the digital generation expect to find our place in that world, we need to learn how to argue with our peers in a way that is considerate and polite, but still effective.

For many in an argument the instinct is to utilize technology in a negative way, illustrated by the types of disagreements we’re used to seeing currently: two girls bash one another on Facebook or politicians criticize the actions of one another on national television. The result is a bunch of people yelling at each other, and nothing changes because no one is really listening.

The technology we have available to us today is astounding when you consider how it evolved in so little time. It has the potential to create some fantastic things, but in terms of arguments we are using it all wrong. It should be a medium to instigate respectful disputes with polite conversation instead of the swearing and yelling that are commonly seen in digital disagreements.

Word choice does matter, as Tannen proposes, but so does Graff’s thesis, which is to instigate conflict in safe environments because it has the potential to be a fantastic teaching tool if done correctly. The solution must be to marry the two—argument and technology—in a way that facilitates the talents of the digital generation and simultaneously encourages the decorum and consideration that should always be present in a disagreement, digital or otherwise.