We’re at Episode #12 🎉 - nearly a quarter of a year of writing newsletters - and I thought as a follow up to last week’s post (“Say It at the Dinner Table”) I would have bring in some productive conflict to this newsletter (yes, very meta).
In terms of format, what this means is that for today’s post I’ll bring in two examples to demonstrate how the rhetorical stuff I’m talking about exists out there in “the real world.”
Why? Because as they say in the Midwest, the proof is in the pudding.
as in:
“Was this recipe worth all the labor and ingredients?”
“We don’t know, we’ll have to taste it, the proof is in the pudding...”
see also:
“Well kiddo, this is where the rubber meets the road.”
Side bar/
If you can’t tell, I love idioms. Idioms are phrases that communicate a social meaning outside of their literal meaning.For example, “It’s raining cats and dogs” does not make literal sense (these animals are not actually descending from the clouds as rain), but it makes social sense to us (it’s raining hard) because the phrase has been circulated by enough people over enough time and the use of that phrase fills some social-linguistic need to communicate “it’s raining hard” that seemingly isn’t accomplished by just using literal phrasing…
Idioms are fascinating sites of rhetoric because they show how words + meaning are socially constructed and socially dependent.
/Side bar.
What I’m interested in looking at in this post are two mini-case studies that ask:
Do tools for productive conflict get used in real life?
How well do these tools work out for the rhetors using those tools?
In short, we are asking together, just how good is this pudding?1
Case #1: Build Back Better (BBB) via Getting Manchin to “Say a Little More”
From a recent post in The Status Kuo, my friend Jay Kuo observes that for the current perceived turmoil with Biden’s “Build Back Better” Bill:
To those disappointed by the size of the final package, it is not uncommon in politics or any rounds of negotiations to demand something big initially yet wind up with only half of it. That is the fact of compromise […].
In the back story to much of the unfolding debate, there were reports of politicians as well as reporters asking the holdouts (Sen. Manchin & Sinema) what exactly it is they wanted—that is—what were they holding out for? While their answers and the back-and-forth can often read as political jostling (and indeed it is), it is also an example of using rhetoric to get someone to “Say a Little More” (Episode #2), a practice I noted that involves:
“[When asking] someone to explain their position in more detail, you provide yourself with a second chance to understand their position. Often what we hear first gets filtered through what we are currently thinking. Buy yourself time to understand what is being said.”
In the case of the negotiations for BBB, the simple reality is that these two senators hold power and used their power to make changes in the bill. Rather than let the bill disassemble and fall into nothingness, the democrats asked their colleagues to “say a little more” about where they stand with the issue, and the result is likely to be an actual bill—while not the original—which is something and will have some impact.
The takeaway: if you’re in a negotiation and not getting what you want, you may need to argue less for what it is you’re after and instead switch your rhetoric to asking the other person what is it that they want. The linguistic material that is created from this question can be used to shape whatever shared outcome might follow.
Case #2: COP26 and “Just Say It”
There have been various instances at the COP26 World Leader Summit (on climate change) where a rhetor’s call has been to move beyond political jostling and negotiation in favor of rhetoric that is forceful, direct, and leaves little room for negotiation. In other words, they “Just Say it” (Episode #4).
Here are two examples:
United Nations Secretary General António Guterres told world leaders at the opening of the conference,
“We are digging our own graves."
And later, President of the UN General Assembly, Abdulla Shahid, added a few more words, saying:
“We have the science. We have the resources. We agree on the urgency.
We have run out of excuses. It is time to do the right thing.
Let us work together…and get this done.”
The rhetoric Guterres and Shahid deploy falls into the category of deliberative rhetoric because the speeches are concerned with what ought to happen. We ought not to continue digging our own graves. We ought to work together. Why? Because all the ingredients are there: science, resources, urgency, and ethics.
But what’s missing, as is often the case for difficult work, is the will.
Sometimes what’s called for is direct action—and action must be backed up with words if it is to move people collectively towards a shared goal.
The takeaway: if the pathway towards a goal is clear—you have the reason, the resources, and the urgency to do something—then its likely time to just say it. You have a duty to create the linguistic material that can potentially circulate among listeners and change how they see and do things. Just say what needs to be done and potentially motivate your listener to share your goal. If you’re lucky, they may actually take the individual action you’re hoping they do, as well.
So, is there proof in the productive conflict pudding?
I think so! At the very least, I hope we saw together how rhetoric lives among us and is actively used to shape how we live in our world, right now, at this very moment.
Next week we’ll get back to the basics and look at some good-ole-fashioned rhetorical practices for fostering productive conflict with our coworkers, family, and fellow citizens. And, I promise, there will be no more talk of pudding.
Hit the ❤️ heart button at the top of the email to let me know you enjoy the newsletter. Every heart keeps me motivated and starts your day off with good vibes.
It’s really good.
Episode #12: Proof is in the Pudding
Thanks for the shout out!