I am reading this book; I know that Tannen's previous books have been
discussed here, although this, her new one is the first that I have read. I
will be seeking out the others.
Anyway, her thesis is that our culture has come to rely more and more
on argument and polarization of views in place of debate and compromise.
She does not question the value of arguement, only that it is
inappropriately pervasive and often reflexive. She raises a number of
issues that are relevant to recent threads. I was struck by one point in
particular. In reference to politics, she differentiates between skepticism
("constructive opposition") and cynicism ("knee-jerk opposition"), and
quotes Wyoming Republican Alan Simpson:
"Cynicism is a cop-out. It takes no virtue -or brains- to be a critic.
Anyone can qualify. It serves no one - certainly not the children of
America - to carp, snipe and complain, and to leave national challenges
unmet.
Skepticism, on the other hand, is essential to the functioning of a
representative democracy."
In a previous post, I defended "criticism" but I think that what I
really had in mind was skepticism; replace the last three words of the
quote with the words "research science". I think what many posters objected
to falls into the cynicism category. Do we all agree that cynicism is bad
but skepticism is good?
Pam
--
Pamela A. Norton, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine
Thomas Jefferson University
Philadelphia, PA 19107 p_norton at lac.jci.tju.edu
