Arguing the Point

At what point in an argument are you just doing it so you don't lose?

I face this question in the wake of an American Lit. class, which, frankly, was more full of energy than it ever has been before. This is mostly because of a good first presentation by the Feminists, who proceeded to portray the different veins of that literary criticism theory with a touch of satire and humor. I felt it was mostly good-natured, although not as serious as one might want an expository presentation to be.

Next came Deconstruction, which is one of the most difficult literary concepts for me to grasp, personally. Even when I theoretically understand it, re-explaining it (or, for that matter, asking a question based on it) seems a rigorous challenge. The presenters did their best, and did use a method to evoke questions and response that proved effective. A little too effective, in my case.

I chafe against being told what to do. I tend to voice opinions stridently. I also don't appreciate (what I rashly interpret as) condescension. Deconstruction, unfortunately, hits my literary buttons: I honestly don't know if I approve the theory or not, because my exposure to it has been through people who I have seen as "talking down" to me.

The time comes in class where I am accused of being contrary for taking a less-popular preference. To be fair, I do act contrary to amuse myself sometimes. This was partly one of those times, and partly because I was tired of the usage of biased words.* As I explained my choice (with more heat than necessary for a twenty-minute classroom presentation), I was interrupted by one of the presenters saying "What you're saying is... [despite not remembering the exact words, I felt that he had undermined my point and even marginalized it]". I interrupted right back with "Don't tell me what I'm saying."

It sounds mild enough, but I know this presenter. I know that he is full of enthusiasm for his subjects and discussion groups, for questioning and exploring, and I admire him for it. Unfortunately, I find that enthusiasm in a classroom setting to be more on the condescension side, despite knowing full well he would never intend such a thing. Outside of the classroom, I like him. Inside of it, it's hard to not be irritated.

At what point did I lose my grip on a legitimate concern, and simply want to win? Interruptions are neither polite nor constructive to a reasonable discussion. I don't like feeling stupid, and being told what I am saying strikes me as a correction against my own thought process--but that doesn't justify being ornery.

At least it made people laugh.


*In retrospect, that was part of the point of Deconstruction. Chalk one up to rash behavior.