September 9, 2011 7:32 pm

Is it good to argue?

Some differences touch sensitive chords, making it difficult for us to stay calm and collected

A couple is engaged in a heated exchange, and emotions are running high. Should we interpret this as a healthy sign of mutual engagement, part and parcel of a flourishing relationship, or are they heading for a doomed future?

More

On this story

IN FT Magazine

Arguing has its staunch supporters, who tirelessly point out that “bottling things up” and avoiding confrontation is not good for individuals or relationships. Differences need to be aired and resolved. They believe that avoidance will only lead to health complaints for the avoider. Even if the relationship does last, without engagement with the real raw edges, it will be a superficial and bloodless one.

There is a lot of truth in this view. But it is only partially accurate. While expressing emotions, dealing with issues and being honest are clearly good things and necessary in a lasting relationship, it’s possible to achieve them without tearing each other’s hair out.

Illustration of a building where couples are arguing

But then it all depends on what we mean by “arguing”. Are we arguing if we are at odds with someone and express our disagreement in emotional tones? Or does arguing require accusation, recrimination, criticism? Without knowing how they are talking to each other, we can’t begin to guess whether our couple is perfectly happy or heading for disaster.

Some form of disagreement is inevitable in most relationships. And some differences touch sensitive chords, or threaten fundamental values, making it difficult for us to stay calm and collected. Heated exchanges can follow. But passionate disagreement is not the same as hostility towards another person.

In fact, it is this ability to remain basically on the same side that can make all the difference. Instead of a battle against the other person, a discussion can become a joint struggle to find the most truthful and constructive approach to the situation. Acceptance, understanding and respect do not have to be switched off, even in the midst of a heated discussion.

The Sage

Everyone knows an argument in philosophy is not the same as an argument in a car stuck in traffic on the way to the in-laws. It’s good to argue in the sense of providing a set of reasons, linked by a chain of reasoning, in support of a conclusion; bad to get caught up in a hot-headed fight.

This is one argument, however, that I’m not entirely convinced by. The distinction between these kinds of arguing is only as neat as the one between rational and emotional grounds for belief – which is to say it is very untidy indeed. Emotion is almost always a part of cogitation, it’s just that on some occasions its role is more dominant or obvious than on others. For instance, anyone with experience of an academic seminar can see – almost feel – the extent to which pride, ego and emotional investment in a project sit not far behind the supposedly objective argumentation. Even when people appear to be having a purely rational argument, aspects of the more heated variety are nearly always at play.

The autobiographies of philosophers reveal that most were temperamentally inclined towards the views they took. Intellectual convictions seem to be driven very strongly by dispositions of character, so many disagreements are as much about clashes of personality as they are about logic.

This often covert role that emotion plays helps to explain why much of what passes for intellectual debate is no more than an exchange of views, with people talking past each other, not addressing the substance of their interlocutor’s case. The desire to be right overrides the commitment to truth. It takes more than critical thinking skills to overcome this: it also requires an awareness of our emotional attachments to our beliefs.

In traffic jams or in seminar rooms, what makes an argument good is that it generates more light than heat. Tempestuous rows obviously fail this test, but sometimes we mistakenly award a pass to apparently rational exchanges simply because we are not close enough to the fires that fuel them to feel the flames.

If you would like to suggest a question, please e-mail shrinkandsage@ft.com. Stephen Grosz returns next week

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.