What Does a Mask Mean?

Jenny helps people de-escalate conflict and find common ground. She has a decision to make when one of her co-workers shares an unkind opinion about people who wear masks in public. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments. How we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Have you ever come out of an argument and asked yourself, what was that about? Amid the back and forth, the exchange of emotions and ideas, it can sometimes be difficult to slow everything down and focus on what we were arguing about in the first place.

What is the core of this disagreement we're having? Many scholars who study the subject reduce arguments to three kinds. Fact, value, and policy. Sometimes, just to take the first of those types, we disagree with others about the most basic building blocks of reality. What happened? Were you late? Were you speeding?

What color is this dress? Who directed the movie Blade Runner? Who won the election? Some of these and other kinds of factual disagreements seem easy to solve, easy to verify. But [00:01:00] for other disagreements, this process of proving or verification can lead to even more disagreements over who gets to decide what's true and what's false.

In the best case scenario, we can slow down a factual disagreement, pause and come together on a basis of a fact, and move on. In the worst case scenario, we have to decide how, if at all, we can move forward together while disagreeing about what's real. I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston.

Our guest today is Jenny Cohane, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Baltimore. She co founded a research lab called CARP, Character Assassination and Reputation Politics that focuses on trolling, negative ads. And all sorts of nastiness in the public sphere. Jenny, tell us an argument story.

Jenny Keohane: Thank you. My argument story happened about six weeks ago, so this is relatively recent for me. [00:02:00] I was at a bridge building event at a conference of sorts, um, that was dedicated to depolarization. Debate and we were doing work with the braver angels organization, which is a national level organization that again works on depolarization and politics really wants to encourage people to have one on one conversations with people who disagree with So I was at a conference at Pacific Lutheran University, which is in Tacoma outside of Seattle.

And I was literally sitting at a dinner as part of this conference event. Um, with, I was sitting next to a woman I had just met as part of this, this conference experience. And You know, I had spent a little bit of time with this woman over the course of the previous two days. Um, I had had dinner with her the night before.

She complimented my nail [00:03:00] polish. Uh, we were talking about how we were both Swifties and loved Taylor Swift. And so, All the reason that this argument is sticking with me is that all of the the building blocks were having a civil conversation about politics were there. We had built some common ground. We knew we liked things together.

We had spent some time together. I was getting to know her as a person, not to mention again, we were literally at an event dedicated to depolarization and having conversations across difference. Um, And so, yeah, uh, the, the conversation at the table turned from Taylor Swift to the pandemic and the challenges that came along with the coronavirus pandemic.

Um, and this woman, um, told me that she found people wearing masks, that were still wearing masks these days as just a [00:04:00] form of, of virtue signaling that had nothing to do with, with public health. Now, um, You know, I, I work at a university. I am continually at events where there are big groups of people together.

And so some of my students still wear masks. Up until spring of, of last year, I was still wearing a mask in the classroom, um, because it was important to me for a variety of reasons. But, uh, nonetheless, I also live in Washington, D. C. And, you know, the Seattle area is also a hub of liberalism. So a lot of people, again, that would have been inclined to kind of agree with me that public health is really important and we need to do what we can to protect people who are vulnerable.

Um, and so, so she said that, and the conversation turned to that and, um, You know, I, I guess I said a couple of things, but like I had sort of gone red and, um, you know, I also, one of the reasons [00:05:00] I come at this, this depolarization work is the long career that I had as a competitive debater as well. So I think that perhaps better than a lot of people, I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of an issue.

I was taught to research and to argue on, on both sides, which is what we had to do as. Competitive debaters, but this situation was so frustrating for me because it feels like Like my logic failed. I wanted to do the things that I know that you can't really do but that my debater Self still wanted to do use the force of the better argument use logic to convince this woman that in fact You know people who are still choosing to wear a mask in public are not virtue signaling, but they're perhaps Protecting an elderly relative at home or What have you.

Um, and, and so like everything in me wanted to do that. And I, I made a couple of arguments that she shot down. Uh, [00:06:00] and, uh, I, I found myself saying, and my soul died as I said this. Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that one. And I, I hated myself for saying it because it's so trite and I think that, you know.

Discussing and arguing requires more than that, even as I realize that there is no perfect world in which we are all going to agree to agree on things that have deep moral foundations and disagreements. But I left that conversation, and this is, I think, elitist, perhaps, but I left that conversation feeling like surely I could have done better.

A debater. Who had spent the past two days at a bridge building event, who had actually built common ground with this woman who was now just like making me want to tear my hair out of my head. Um, and then of course the, the like sort of way that I, I kind of shut down the [00:07:00] conversation by just saying, well, we'll agree to disagree.

Um, and so that is why this argument story is, is sticking with me. Um, because it seemed like all of the perfect pieces were there For us to have a really deep and meaningful conversation about politics, and for whatever reason that didn't happen, I couldn't make it happen, and so it felt like I, I failed both as someone who is active.

In this Bridge building depolarization space and, you know, at, at sort of the core of my being also a debater, that surely, you know, I could have convinced her, I could have convinced her, you know? Um, so that is my argument story that is clearly still living in my brain, rent free, six weeks after it happened.

Michael Lee: Uh, a lot's coming up for me, I'll be honest with you. Um, first, you know, I was a former debater, I am a former debater as well, and have been in that situation where I feel very [00:08:00] strongly that I can, use this training for good or for evil to, um, help heat a house or to burn it down. And so those two things live inside me at all times.

Uh, second, I'm interested in the argument you were having period about mask wearing kind of post vaccination, you know, and after the hot zone of COVID, at least for many people seems to have passed sitting here in 24. And then Three, the argument you were having about arguments in a space that's explicitly devoted to having healthier arguments.

And then the fourth thing I'm interested in is your thoughts about yourself, because it sounds like you came away with this kind of with some self flagellating, as you said, hating yourself a little bit. And so I want to flag that and definitely come back to it. But let's, let's start at least with her, her claim.

So she [00:09:00] says that mask wearing at this point in time is obviously just virtue signaling. Does she give any support whatsoever for that claim? 

Jenny Keohane: I, I'm relying on memory and realizing, of course, that this clearly triggered me emotionally. So, uh, my memory of this, of this exchange, this argument, um, suggests like, like the way I remember it, neither of us did a very good job of providing reasons for our claims.

Um, And I think both of us sort of fell back on that thing that arguers do, which is to say, well, that's just my opinion or in my experience. And certainly it's not a bad thing to recognize that our experiences are limited. Um, uh, but it, yeah. So, so I don't think she gave me a good reason, but I also, like I said, felt very frustrated in my [00:10:00] inability to, um, You know kind of move beyond that and and I I was like I said torn between these two competing impulses of wanting to destroy her And then recognizing in in the space that we were in that that would be um, you know both bad and that again my debater instincts do not necessarily always serve the interests of To speak on a broad level democracy all that well, right?

Michael Lee: Well, and that is such an interesting irony about this space of depolarization as well because so much of the work and depolarization is about finding common ground agreeing on on values We both agree in fairness or justice or efficiency or whatever it is And then working our way back from there not getting mired down in our disagreements over facts and debate You Or persuasion can be somewhat antithetical to those and saying, you know, I just think you see this wrong period and here's, here's a better [00:11:00] way to look at it, you know, and I hope that you can see the force of the better argument here.

and separate perhaps your ego investment into having just made a claim in public that you might have to walk back. Yeah, I mean, I will 

Jenny Keohane: say too, I think one of the things that's challenging about this particular topic, um, two is that, uh, both of us would have really had to be mind readers in order to provide super effective evidence for the claims that we were making.

Right. Like, You know, I don't know what my students that wear masks in class are actually thinking. I assume they are doing it for a reason related to public health, but I don't know. Maybe they are, um, you know, just trying to show themselves to be the virtuous public citizens, you know? Um. 

Michael Lee: Maybe they have an elderly relative, as you said, or maybe they have social anxieties and the mask is a way to launder those.

I mean, who knows? I mean, I guess the follow up I wanted to ask you on that point. You know, connecting the argument itself over these facts [00:12:00] to the argument about arguments so that like the meta thing that's also going on simultaneously. is in the space, there's so much talk, and I think all of us as human beings have a choice when we're faced with something that seems controversial in public, which is why did that thing just happen?

And then what are the range of assumptions I'm going to make about another human being as to what their motivation is here? And at least the way you've rendered her argument. She has made the most uncharitable assumption possible of the range of assumptions about what would motivate somebody to wear a mask in today's time.

Jenny Keohane: Yeah. 

Michael Lee: Which is deeply ironic given that that's probably the first piece of advice we would give in depolarization spaces was Let's try to understand people where they are. 

Jenny Keohane: Agreed. Agreed. Yes. 

Michael Lee: So what would you do differently going back? 

Jenny Keohane: Yeah, I mean, I guess, um, maybe, uh, [00:13:00] I think that I, uh, could have done a better job of trying to understand her argument.

Um, and so I think, Um, and I don't remember whether I said this in the moment. I, I assume that I, I didn't, because I don't really remember any reasons that she gave me for why, uh, you know, she, she believed the thing that she does. And I, and I will say, you know, um, this argument about masks sits within a much broader framework of like, was, how did we do in our pandemic response and, and that kind of thing.

And so there's a number of like big issues tied up there. Um, But I think one thing that I would do differently, um, in, in that moment is to try to do a better job of understanding the why, of like, why is it that, that you believe that? And perhaps that is, uh, I mean, I think that's good, right? When we talk about depolarization, which is, you know, It's a thing that I believe in a great deal, which is why I'm active in this space and [00:14:00] why, um, debate matters to me, because debate can be a tool for doing some of this work, even as it can also be a tool to entrench us in our silos.

Um, you know, uh, we are always taught to look for motive, and so there's a part of me that's like, well, if I knew her, why better? I could attack the argument even better, um, right? You want to go at the warrants, not just at the, the claims as we're taught as debaters. But I also think that understanding the why is a good way of trying to, to connect it to, to the experience and trying to, to, to maybe be a little, be able to be a little bit more charitable about how she's coming at this point.

Michael Lee: It could not be more interesting in the sense that she. As you've discussed her case is not being very charitable and then you in response would like to change your behavior back in this conversation that was so irritating by being more charitable [00:15:00] to the person who's not making very charitable assumptions about others, right?

Last question in the one that really came up for me, and it's, it seems like a bigger picture issue than just this exchange. with this person was about the phrase agree to disagree. When you said it and you said you hated yourself for saying it. I thought, Oh my God, I feel exactly the same way. And I had a lot come up thinking if I've ever said it or I've heard somebody say it, it drives me bonkers.

Talk that out a little bit, both why it irritates you and why you felt upset with yourself for saying it in that moment. 

Jenny Keohane: I think the reason it irritates me so much is because, on the one hand, it is the fundamental truism of democratic politics, right? There is no world in which everyone is going to agree about everything all the time, and in a, uh, a sort of diverse, uh, society, that becomes even more [00:16:00] impossible.

Um, and so, so on one hand, the idea that like, well, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and when your team is in power, uh, you get to do the things that you want, and then the other team just sort of has to sit there and wait for their turn, you know, um, Uh, is is fundamentally what democracy is about. So So I think the reason I hate the phrase so much, um, partially because, well, Oh, my gosh.

Yes. Uh, this is I hate it because it's so fundamentally true. And it seems like sort of the the biggest cop out that you could take to trying to understand democracy and getting along with complex, messy humans that we engage with every day. I also hate it as a a former debater because to me it feels like well that means you've given up you've realized that you can't convince someone and you know, a debate round has a finite and the debate [00:17:00] ends the judge votes, but You know, interactions with other people don't necessarily need to go that way.

Like we could keep arguing. I could keep trying to bring to bear the force of the better argument to persuade you. Of course, you know, the dinner at the conference was only an hour long. So, you know, there are limitations there. But, um, You know, I, I dislike it because it feels true, and I dislike it because it feels like giving up, and it does also feel like we should be able to do better, right?

Even if we are not going to persuade someone else of our policy proposals, as you said, a lot of the, the bridge building space tries to recognize people's experiences and, um, You know, uh, so so I think not that we will always come away from a debate or a disagreement with some form of common ground, but it does seem like it's it's too easy.

Um, and we [00:18:00] should be able to do a little bit better. 

Michael Lee: It does seem like a bit of a false end, you and I have just launched into this discussion about whatever we're arguing about and then I throw my hands up and say, well, agree to disagree, and then that's that and there's really no exchange of reasons or back and forth.

It's almost like either waving the white flag too early or some kind of tacit admission that I actually really can't defend the things that I'm saying. So I'll just say, well, we agree to disagree. 

Jenny Keohane: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it does, it does, I think, sort of signal, you know, uh, if you're not conceding that you'll be able to persuade the other person, it maybe concedes that you're running out of reasons for your, your position, both of which feels bad to me as a debater, but again, as someone deeply invested in figuring out how to make democracy work in the crazy world we live in now, It's also hard to deny its fundamental truth.

Michael Lee: Jenny Cohane, thanks so much for being on When We Disagree. 

Jenny Keohane: Thank you so much for having me. I'm still going to [00:19:00] keep thinking about this, but I do feel some catharsis, perhaps.

Michael Lee: When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com.