The Blessing of a Contrary Interlocutor

Interlocutor - n., a person who engages in conversation or questioning, an interrogater

I like being disagreed with. By that I don't mean I like it when people argue with me in an angry way, or call me names, or belittle my position on an issue. But for as long as I can remember I have enjoyed the back and forth of dialogue, and the mental exercise of vigorous debate.

While it seems that I am unusual in this trait, I by no means have found myself to be unique. There are many of us contrarians out there, and my wife will be the first to admit the trait is not always a positive one to have to deal with. But I will say the discipline of beneficent argument is one that is worth preserving and even going out of one's way to acquire and engage in. If my past posts have been read it shouldn't be difficult to see why. We all have a perspective, we de facto believe these perspectives to be correct, but we are naïve if we think that all of our beliefs are faultless. This is the value of a strong interlocutor, someone who can point out the blind-spots in our thinking, can make us re-examine what we have taken for granted.

But this takes work. Because when confronted with someone who disagrees with us on something we actually care about--politics, religion, sports, you name it--the first human tendency is to fight. We so frequently identify ourselves with our beliefs that we take personal offense at the fact that someone out there somewhere disagrees with us, and perhaps even worse, is trying to convince others of what we hold to be patently false. This identification is by no means wrong, in fact in some cases it is necessary to hold a belief with sincerity. Someone who says they believe that Jesus is God, or that Mohammed is the true prophet of Allah, or that Buddha found the way to reach Nirvana and yet does not on some level tie their identity to that belief is either insincere or so deeply compartmentalized as to be in danger of developing multiple personalities.

I do not believe the problem comes not with identifying ourselves with our beliefs, but with how we then go about interacting with others who are otherwise identified. I am not advocating here a sort of spineless "tolerance" that is dismissive of the importance of these things, rather I am asking us all to seriously consider whether or not our baseline ideological hostility is akin to racism; and perhaps just as deeply ingrained in our psyches and just as damaging to our ability to interact positively in a heterogeneous society.

What is needed is for us to develop an ability to thoughtfully, vigorously, and respectfully confront those who are within our sphere of influence, and likewise allow ourselves to be confronted. In some cases it is downright irresponsible to see someone behaving in a way that is believed to be destructive and to not intervene. Obviously not in every case--one need not go around pulling cigarettes out of the mouths of smokers--but in some instances to stand by silently is to be complicit in whatever destructive act is being perpetrated.

Love demands that we engage with others thoughtfully. On ideological issues the first line of action is to stand in the place of the interlocutor, and allow others to stand in that place against us. There is danger in this, a danger of having tempers flare, of letting an argument turn into a fight, but even then, if we step back and examine ourselves we may with careful consideration see the wounds we bear, the prejudices we carry, the flaws in our thinking that we disguise with emotion, and even then we may be better for the interaction. If we are instead constantly surrounded by sycophantic friends, who merely parrot our own opinions back at us, what have we gained except further justification in our natural tendency to denigrate those who think differently. The advent of politicized and polemical cable news channels should be seen as a great enemy to anyone who desires to see thoughtful and mature dialogue between those who disagree.

So this is an open invitation to those around me--more than an invitation, a request: stand against me where I am found in your eyes to be in error. I cannot promise I will always take it with the dignity and grace I would commend to others or myself. I will readily admit my natural love for a argument needs more refining than most, but as in so many other things, the key to growth is practice, and I would be the kind of man who can be confronted with thoughtful disagreement, allowing myself to be swayed by that which is truly worthy, and kindly and respectfully remaining defiant of what I am not convinced of as true. Here is the heart of humble integrity--not ideological narrowness, but conviction that is not afraid of being proven wrong. The grindstone and the file must be applied to our minds for them to be sharp.