Culture Clash: Debate and Emotional Expression

Source: zenzen/Adobe

In a 2024 review paper (“Cultural Psychology: Beyond East and West”), Kitayama and Salvador summarize decades of findings in comparative psychology across cultures. Interestingly, the meaning of debate and emotional expression varies around the world. They write:

“This evidence indicates that Indians do not engage in argumentation solely to influence others and impose their views on others; rather, they argue with the intention of assisting others and ensuring that others benefit from their arguments. The style of argumentation in Indian debates tends to be more prosocial, contrary to the common assumptions associated with debating in Western contexts (Savani et al. 2011)… One crucial cultural insight from South Asia is that argumentation and the analytic cognition it fosters can be important facets of interdependent social relations…

(In the United States) argumentation is more typically used to defeat opponents in the debate, and analytic cognition is seen as a personal skill rather than a social resource.”

South Asian's propensity to argue and their success in argumentation (presumably with the underlying focus on “prosocial argumentation”) is seen as one reason many have assumed leadership roles in business in the U.S. (Personally, I think the degree of “prosocial argumentation” varies considerably in South Asians—South Asians certainly have their share of antisocial argumentation, from what I’ve seen.)

Latin Americans tend to be more expressive of interdependent (joining) emotions, while those in the West are more expressive of individualistic (differentiating) emotions. East Asians tend to be less expressive of positive emotions, but also focused on interdependence rather than individualism.

These cultural meanings of debate and emotional expression have enormous significance, especially in the “melting pot” of America, in which people from different cultures can commingle and learn from each other, as well as become harmed in the social mix.

Deborah Tannen, distinguished professor of linguistics at Georgetown University, published The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words in 1999. She writes,

“The argument culture urges us to approach the world-and the people in it—in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: Conflict and opposition are as necessary as cooperation and agreement, but the scale is off balance, with conflict and opposition over-weighted.”

Since 1999, I think the “argument culture” has turned into an “attack and destroy culture,” in social media and partisan politics. American debate has been used to amplify extreme individualism, factionalism, social power, and dominance. This threatens cultural cohesion, safety, mental health, and social well-being.

Aggressive language in the public sphere has amplified hostility and focused rage on minorities, immigrant groups, migrants, and women. The so-called “cancel culture” of online activism has publicly shamed or threatened to shame many; cost people their jobs and corporations' business; and President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Elon Musk have set out to “cancel” diversity programs, federal agencies, and previously stable international alliances using the argument that these programs detracted from excellence, were examples of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” or are no longer in America’s interest.

Diversity programs were created based on data on the impact of bias, including arguments made in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). So far, Trump’s administration has not made any legal argument for its positions against diversity programs, and the Washington Post has indicated that the cost savings from “waste, fraud, and abuse” have been greatly exaggerated by Musk’s team.

The “attack and destroy culture” employs power, defined by sociologists as the ability to influence others, as opposed to empathy. Wade Nobles went one step further, defining power as “the ability to define reality and to have others respond to that definition as if it was their own.” Trump’s renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Denali are clear examples of attempts to “define reality” by fiat. In so doing, Trump is “attacking and destroying” the reality built on history and consensus.

“Defining reality” and influencing others involves language, persuasion, debate, relationships, and mass psychology. For those with a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), these are meant to define a hierarchy and subordinate outgroups—to “win” at all costs rather than promoting closeness.

In the “attack and destroy culture,” one party seeks to portray itself as a heroic warrior fighting corrupt villains. Several psychological defenses, cognitive distortions, and modes of power become evident in the public sphere, including splitting, black-and-white thinking, scapegoating, ad hominem attacks, and grandiose self-idealization combined with contempt for others.

Cross-Cultural Psychology Essential Reads

Why Sleeping In Is Not a Thing in the South Asian Community

Why Are AI Companions Especially Popular in East Asia?

Our constitutional right to free speech is part of our cultural DNA. Free speech, free association, and free assembly help us learn and grow. It is always possible to change our old patterns to have new experiences and new understandings of the world and each other. What meanings for debate and emotional expression will we choose to amplify?

Will they be used to “form a more perfect union” and even a society where we can express the best of individualism and interdependence?

Or will debate and emotional expression pit us against each other in an irreconcilable downward spiral away from all the benefits that a more perfect union might bring?

Our mental health and social well-being depend on our individual and collective answers to these questions and imperatives.

© 2025 Ravi Chandra, M.D., D.F.A.P.A.