Cultural conflict: debate and emotional expression

In a 2024 review paper (Cultural Psychology: East and West), Kitayama and Salvador summarize decades of discovery in cross-cultural comparative psychology. Interestingly, the meanings of discussion and emotional expressions vary across the world. They write:

“This evidence shows that Indians are not engaged in discussions solely to influence others and impose their views on others. Rather, they support others and others The style of discussion in India in the discussion is more prosocial, contrary to the general assumptions associated with discussion in Western contexts. It tends to be (Savani etal. 2011)…One of the key cultural insights from South Asia is its discussion and analysis. Cognition It can become an important aspect of interdependent social relations…

(In the US) debate is more typically used to beat the enemy in debate, with analytical cognition being seen as a personal skill rather than a social resource. ”

The trends in South Asian debate and their success in debate (probably focusing on “prosocial debate”) are considered one of the reasons many have assumed leadership The role in business in the US (personally, I think the degree of “prosocial arguments” differs considerably among South Asians. South Asians certainly share antisocial arguments from what I have seen. have).

Latinos tend to express more interdependent (union) feelings, while Westerners are more expressing individualistic (differentiated) feelings. East Asians tend to express positive emotions, but they also focus on interdependence rather than individualism.

These cultural meanings of debate and emotional expression are of great importance, especially in the American “crucible.” There, people from different cultures can learn from each other in a confused way, and are hurt by the social mix.

Published by Deborah Tannen, a well-known professor of linguistics at Georgetown University Discussion Culture: Stop the American Word War 1999. She writes,

“A debate culture encourages people to approach the world and its people within the framework of hostile mind. It is based on the assumption that the opposition is the best way to accomplish something: Disputes and opposition are as necessary as they are necessary cooperation I agree, but the scale is out of balance and conflict and opposition are overly emphasized. ”

Since 1999, I think that “discussion culture” has been transformed into a “culture of attack and destruction.” Social Media And the party Politics. American debate has been used to amplify extreme individualism, territorialism, social power and domination. This threatens cultural cohesion, safety, mental health and social well-being.

The offensive language of the public sphere amplifies and concentrates hostility anger About minorities, immigrant groups, immigrants, and women. The so-called “cancellation culture” of online activism is publicly shamed or threatened shame Many; sacrifice jobs and business to people. and President TrumpVice President Vance and Elon Musk have begun to “cancel” diversity programs, federal agencies and previously stable international alliances, using the argument that these programs undermine excellence. did. There is no more interest in America.

Diversity Programme was created based on data on impacts of biasIncludes the arguments created Brown v. board education (1954). So far, the Trump administration has not had a legal discussion about its position on the diversity program. Washington Post It shows that costs have been reduced from “waste, fraud, abuse” It’s very exaggerated By the mask team.

“Attack and Destruction Culture” employs power defined by sociologists as the ability to influence others, in contrast to empathy. Wade Nobles went a step further, defining it as “the ability to define reality and make others respond to that definition to your own definition.” Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Denali is a clear example of Fiat’s attempt to “define reality.” In doing so, Trump is “attacking and destroying” reality built on history and consensus.

“Defining reality” and affecting others involve language. Persuasiondiscussion, relationships, and popular psychology. For those with social domination orientation (SDO), these are intended to define hierarchies and lower outgroups.

In “Attack and Destroy Culture,” one party seeks to portray its status as a heroic warrior fighting corrupt villains. Some modes of psychological defense, cognitive distortion, and power include grand self-realization, including division, black and white thinking, scapegoating, and grand self-awareness, combined with light empt to others. It becomes clear in the realm.

The constitutional right to freedom of speech is part of our culture DNA. Free speech, free associations, and free assembly help us learn and grow. It is always possible to change old patterns to deepen new experiences and new understandings of the world and each other. Do you choose to amplify the meaning of argument and emotional expression?

Are they used to “form a more complete union” and even in societies where we can express our supreme individualism and interdependence?

Or will debate and emotional expression make us fight each other in an incongruous downward spiral that will not separate from all the benefits of a more complete union?

Our mental health and social well-being relies on our personal and collective answers to these questions and orders.

©2025 Ravi Chandra, MD, DFAPA