In a recent L. A. Times column, linguist Deborah Tannen explores gender differences in the context of a) the sciences and b) public discourse. I’m not convinced by all of her argument, some of which relies on reductive West vs. East cliches about modes of thought, and some of which extends that easy and misleading dichotomy into similar gender dichotomies. If men and women are significantly different, and the research at this point indicates they are, I don’t think it’s helpful to say one or the other has a “better way.” (I recognize that those words belong to the editor, not Tannen, but they’re a fair inference, at least in the context of Tannen’s discussion of journalism.) It’s also ironic that her very argument relies to some extent on the “agonistic” discourse she’s trying to characterize and counter. That said, Tannen usefully reminds us that rhetoric includes much more than argument, and that discourse may be thoughtful, deeply analytical, and persuasive without presenting itself as a “fight.” And I’m delighted to see that Walter Ong, whom Tannen calls a “cultural linguist,” is a focal point for these ideas.

EDIT: I was so distracted by the gender lead that it was only a few hours later I realized that there was a much more important point in Tannen’s article, one that didn’t really emerge until the end: one isn’t necessarily complicit just because one isn’t attacking. In fact, once the attack has begun, it’s pretty clear that the possible outcomes are few: defeat, victory, or uneasy truce. Tannen’s conclusions remind us that these are not the only possibilities, and that advocates of inquiry and cooperation are not necessarily just “company men” (or women).