She surprised me. I never would have thought that she would have said it. And while I don’t remember the exact words, the idea is worth ‘putting to paper’.
“You are just as black and white now as you’ve ever been.”
How could that possibly be? I see way, way, way more nuance in the world than I ever have before. I know that I know less than I ever appreciated before, and I say so often. When she asks me a question, I answer, “I don’t know,” or, “I couldn’t say,” more than 95% of the time. But those moments don’t resonate.
What resonates with her are the times that I take a stand; when I have read about, or have sufficient knowledge in, an idea, concept, or subject that is empirical to defend a defensible position. Those are the moments when I am unwavering. Those are the moments that I will not concede, because in these empirical areas there is only right and wrong, true and false, possible and impossible, black and white. These are the moments that she remembers.
This weekend, I shared this with Kevin; I shared my confusion and frustration. In turn, he shared with me some context, and reminded me that my thoughts and words at any given time don’t exist in a vacuum. He peeled back the veneer of self-righteousness and exposed more truth than I had been conscious of. And while it may not be true, it is very possible.
It is possible that – when I argue with Christine – I am confronting 2 ideas at once. Obviously I am confronting Christine’s ideas in the moment, but I am also confronting her idea of who I am.
20 years ago, I argued for the fun and spirit of debate. I used to argue to win. I used to play devil’s advocate as an exercise of self-serving fun, a challenge. It was about the battle of wits, even if it wasn’t always consensual. It wasn’t about right and wrong, or true and false … it was about me outwitting her (or whoever else would engage me). There was a lot of good in me back then (or so I like to think), but my tendency toward argumentative assholery is not something that I’m particularly proud of in retrospect.
But I have changed – a lot – since we met, dated, and eventually married, especially in the last 7-8 years. Today, I hope to argue in order to educate, both myself and others … I view argumentation a tool or process for intellectual enlightenment. I win when I, or someone else learns or evolves their thinking, not when the other person fails to supply a sufficient retort. In this way I no longer view argument as a battle of wits, but a melding of minds wrestling with often-incompatible thoughts. It is about growth – sometimes mine, sometimes the other’s.
This is how I see things, but after talking with Kevin, I wonder – and doubt – if she sees things through the same lens. I am beginning to wonder who she thinks she is arguing with sometimes, and why.
When we recently sat down for dinner, and she told Austin and Victoria that a particular type of food was “unhealthy”, and I argued that foods aren’t necessarily “unhealthy”, only choices and behaviors … I wonder who she thought she was talking to. In the moment, I thought we were having a conversation – in front of the children – to teach them how (1) critically think and (2) make healthy choices for themselves in the future. Perhaps she saw the me from 10 years ago sitting across the table from her spitefully taking up up a contrarian point of view for fun, for the sake of argument alone, and thought she was being attacked.
That isn’t who I am anymore, but it’s probably who I was in the past. Is that who she is arguing with?