In Defense of Contention

I have friends—now, in the past, and most probably in the future—who could be called peacemakers: if there is contention, if factions are at odds, should it appear voices will soon be raised, they are quick to snuff out and neuter the budding argument. However, peace is not always the ultimate goal here but calm, and when peace may only be won by an airing, by honest disagreement, this natural tendency in some can override better judgment; no one is talking to each other, and that is acceptable to these peacemakers; the bitter or content silence is heard the same.

Now, in all honesty, such an extreme I have never known. I have only seen the tendency that way. This may be because the methods employed by my peacemaking friends are often antithetical to argument—sighs, silence, and distractions from contention—and as such I, like some dirty ogre, have been known to walk through their pleasant garden of tranquility, knocking over wheelbarrows and disrupting flowerbeds as I search for a good fight nearly oblivious to the disruption I cause. If they could argue with me to stop arguing I could hear them better, but my sympathies cannot fall when the endeavor lacks reason.

Argument and contentions are not evils, nor need they be as dangerous as my peacemaking friends perceive. From my experience, it is far more destructive to a group when they cannot weather their differences because they cannot air them, for it is like a man refusing doctors’ counsel for fear he’ll learn he’s sick. Reason is light, and argument is her dividing blade. In the midst of a checker’s game I exclaimed that the peacemaker’s tendency to avoid conflict was frustrating. This was meant generally; the game was dragging on because my opponent refused to come in conflict, would avoid any and all jumps.

I had come to the conclusion, somewhat subconsciously, that this peacemaking tendency was a weakness, someone afraid of contention because it meant daddy might hit them, until someone came to their defense. The takeaway was something like, neither position, neither view, when taken to an extreme, can be nor is it desirable. Both positions exist because both are necessary for functional group dynamics. And as Solomon put it: [There is] a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

So, if you are a peacemaker, and you must deal with ogres like myself, try to understand we disdain obfuscation. Put into simple terms why it would be bad to have this argument, right here and now, and if reason is truly our aspiration we are obliged to heed.