196. ARGUMENTS DON'T WORK - And I Won't Be Able to Convince You
I have been thinking about arguments. And the more I do, the more I think they don’t actually convince anyone of anything.
My assertion is that we are convinced not by arguments, but by relationships. And while a relationship will certainly make us more open minded to a particular argument presented to us, it is ultimately the relationship which determines how powerful we find the argument than the argument itself. The argument becomes an extension of the relationship.
My thoughts began with the annual phenomenon of student options choices. Much as I would like to believe students make rational choices about what to study next year it always seems that the most important factor in their course selection is actually the relationship they have with their teacher. Reason and logic might suggest Subject A is something they ought to take but reason and logic mean nothing if the teacher taking the subject is someone they do not like. Meanwhile, if Teacher X teaches Subject B, and the student likes Teacher X, they are far more likely to take Subject B even if they don’t know for sure that they will enjoy Subject B.
Anecdotal, perhaps. But consistent across GCSE and A-level choices and across multiple schools.
Then the election results from America came in. I was struck by the persistent refrain across the campaign: I don’t know why they do these debates (or insert any other campaigning event) as people already know who they are going to vote for. The sheer head-scratching wonderment of how a rational person could possibly vote for Trump is explained very simply by the idea that they just like the guy. Or they like their friends, or celebrities, or influencers, or whoever that like the guy. Not peer pressure. Not blind conformity. But an openness to the ideas of Trump and views of Trump because they are coming from someone, or someones, you feel some personal connection to. The relationship (with Trump, with other Trump voters) is stronger than the relationship to Harris (or other Harris voters) and so his words feel more convincing than hers. Speaking from the opposite side of the aisle, I know I never really gave Trump’s words the time of day, nor did I critically engage with Kamala Harris’ speeches. I had already decided I was voting for Kamala and that Trump is a monster. I heard only the monstrous things which came out of his mouth. I didn’t really attend to the rest. And with Kamala (or Biden) I was compassionate and understanding of any gaffes or ideas I don’t actually agree with and amplified the bits I liked. Because I liked those guys (even poor old Joe) far better than what Trump seems to represent, I was open to any compromises there between what they offered and my own ideal personal values and voted for what I felt (and still feel) was the greater good. But when Biden stepped down, would I have voted for anyone who took his place? Probably. Did any of their arguments sway me? Not in the slightest. And was there anything at all Trump could have said which would have made me vote for him? Not at all.
As a philosophy teacher, we teach arguments to students all day long, and hear plenty of arguments given back to us. Sometimes the discussions in our classroom change people’s minds about things. More often than not, they don’t. But even here, I was wondering about philosophy’s place in the world, given my looming doubts about the power of arguments to change any minds. And I realised that the reason arguments seem so important to us philosophers, and to those of us in the philosophy classroom, is because our relationship to philosophy makes us attend to arguments.
Consider how the non-specialist looks at a philosophy essay and can’t get through it. Says it hurts their brain or confuses them. Consider how there is no argument on earth made so convincingly that everyone who hears it immediately concedes to its wisdom and aligns with its conclusions.
The philosopher is interested in all this. How arguments work. If they work. Why they work. And we all - anyone who considers themselves a philosopher - have been introduced to the discipline by someone. A teacher. A friend. And when we ask that question - what is philosophy? We get told about love of wisdom and searches for truth and we begin to develop our own relationship with that mission. Our own search for wisdom and truth. And this makes us attend to the arguments which lie beneath the assumptions it appears too few people are questioning.
But perhaps the main reason most people don’t ask those questions is because they have not put themselves into a relationship with philosophy, and therefore have not been brought along with the argument that the unexamined life is not worth living. Their own relationships with the world they know and are happy with are stronger, and so they remain compelled by the idea that there are more important things to spend their energies on.
I like to credit the work of Peter Singer with making me first think about not eating meat seriously. But I only read the Singer because I had a best friend (a relationship) who had already stopped eating meat and turned me onto Singer’s work because a band we both loved (a relationship) had mentioned Peter Singer in the liner notes for one of their records.
Think how real social change happens in the world. It is not through logical argument persuading the masses that their old views must change. It is through getting to know people with different views or lived experiences to your own. The new neighbours who dispel your prejudiced assumptions about people of a certain ethnic background. The son or daughter (or non-binary child) who you don’t want to lose contact with just because of your old fashioned views about sexuality and force you to confront the idea that love is love. The girlfriend or wife or female friend who tells you about how their life is as a woman in a patriarchal world that you, because of the privilege of your own gender, had never before had to consider.
We talk often about how representation matters. It matters because seeing something actually happening is far more convincing than making an argument for it. The world changes when we open our eyes to the fact that it has already changed and we finally name it. It doesn’t change because of arguments. The arguments just act as a comforting soundtrack to those already convinced and a terrifying battlecry to those opposed. The magic bit - the bit where people change their minds - happens elsewhere.
Again - not that an argument has no power at all. Once attending and alert to the argument through our relationship to it, it might make a difference one way or another on the specifics. It might expand or constrict our understanding or tolerance, and it might give a coherent framing to our intuitions and instincts. But it cannot operate independent of a relationship. We hear the argument only because we have already emotionally invested in what it is arguing. If we are not emotionally invested, the words fall dead on our ears.
You will note, astute reader, that I am writing this post in a rather stream-of-consciousness way. Not really aiming to write a convincing or compelling argument to sway you to my point. The reason should be obvious: if you have read this far, you already know what you think. Either you agree with me (and are maybe reading this because, as a regular reader of this blog, we already have a relationship or, if this is the first time, you’re liking what you see) or you don’t, and have a relationship of opposition to this silly idea to which nothing I can write will change your mind. If I am right about my hunch, I cannot convince you through argument, only offer what I have been doing on this website for nearly 200 posts across five years: a relationship that makes you open your mind a bit to the things I have to say. And if I am wrong? Well that’s easy - write me a counter-argument in the comments and try to change my mind.
Author: DaN McKee (he/him)
My book, ANARCHIST ATHEIST PUNK ROCK TEACHER, is out everywhere on paperback and eBook. You can order it direct from the publisher or from places like Amazon. Get it as a Christmas present for that special someone in your life!
My academic paper - ‘An error of punishment defences in the context of schooling’ is out in the Journal of Philosophy of Education here.
My other book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE , from the publisher, and from all good booksellers, either in paperback or as an e-Book.
I also have a chapter in THIS BOOK on punk and anarchism.
Listen to me on The Independent Teacher podcast here. Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. Listen to me on the Philosophy Gets Schooled podcast here. Listen to me talk anarchism and wrestling here or anarchism and education here. For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com
If you liked this post and appreciate what I do here at Philosophy Unleashed and want to buy me a coffee or cool philosophy book to say thank you, feel free to send a small donation/tip my way here.