Humanity Through The Looking Glass

The human body is a massively complex system. Through just natural processes alone the millions of genes set the deferences cross species and many of the noted differences in individual people. Yet each of these entities have a different culture of nurture. With all of these variables and differences of expression, it would be logical to expect two people to be extremely unique masses of genes and experiences. Most individualist will argue the truth behind this, yet however different two people are both will have a body that is only slightly different and a history of eating, communicating, learning, and feeling. Whether it is part of nature or nurture, there is a framing structure of life. Mammals are nurturing creatures because the infantile stages are unable to survive alone. Humans have one of the longest infantile stages which creates room for huge differences in individual physical and psychological form but it is the context of immediate moments that normally will cause these differences. Deborah Tannen discusses, in her essay “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue,” the predictability of the classroom environment drawing conclusions that arguing is linked to human education. Susan Faludi in “The Naked Citadel” explores the all male environment of hazing and violence and concludes that the changes in womens roles have degraded the image of masculinity in these men’s minds rendering them incapable of functioning in society. Both the argumentative classroom and violent Citadel are easily traced back to genes and upbringing but the context involved in both environments plays a major role. Malcolm Gladwell uses the “Broken Window” theory in his essay “Power of Context” to suggest immediate environment can over power human action. Tannen and Faludi are focused on this underlying theme of violence which does not fit the model of civilized culture but they overlook the context. Gladwell feels people over estimate the larger problems and under estimate the smaller. There is always a search for peace from suffering but utopianism is impossible. Thus civility crumbles as debate and preservation provoke violent solutions. However individuals have the choice to commit this uncivil act and that choice is based on the immediate environment they are placed in.

Education is a fundamental part of any culture that induces right from wrong. The classroom should be a predictable environment. One teacher feeds knowledge to a student body in an orderly fashion, basic skills necessary to survive in the modern world. “When do we stop being amateurs and become experts, and what are the psychological consequences of this transition?” (Gladwell 234). Tannen’s classroom of debate and critique is not as predictable or as fundamental. This learning style is of a higher level were students might “integrate ideas and explore subtleties and complexities” (Tannen 677). However, it requires a shepherd to guide the student’s growth or else the result will be conflict. Tannen through observation concluded “men tended to speak more than women in their classes” and that students “will not concede an opponent’s point, even if they can see its validity, because that would weaken their position” (Tannen 677 & 681). Tannen concludes that men are naturally more adversarial and are nurtured to engage in debate because teachers try to “control such physical exuberance” (Tannen 682). Gladwell would agree that logically the boy’s participation is closely linked to their ‘Y’ chromosome and their upbringing but he would add that the classroom itself influences the roles of the students. “Character is more like a bundle of habits and tendencies and interests, loosely bound together and dependent, at certain times, on circumstance and context” (Gladwell 246). Thus maybe the sheer fact that the students were under observation influences the actions. A female watching a class may provoke male students to be more adversarial to stand out more. Maybe the teacher in question seems to be taking a back seat in the discussion making a sham of proper education just for a break and the female students do not see the point in participating in such an environment. In both cases a gender difference is still noted but these scenarios muddle Tannen’s perception that men are unnecessarily pugnacious especially in debate. Tannen’s point is that the unbridled wild animal of debate will have a hard time going in the right direction. However society is full of tangential arguments were both sides argue with no compromises. From Faludi’s standing, “every trial has its rare moments of clarity, when we bramble of admissibility arguments and technicalities is cut away and we see the actual issue” (Faludi 196). The unnecessary battering over laps a central theme but truthfully the context of the immediate classroom is accountable for the varying results in whether a debate classroom is successful or not. Incorporating context into Tannen’s ideas makes her generalizations of the classroom into a more probable prediction.