The American way of dealing with conflict, according to the article, is arguing. This might not be the best way, and it's definitely not the only way. The article serves the purpose of exploring the cultural differences in how others deal with conflict. It provides alternatives and different ideas in how to resolve conflicts, as oppose to arguing.
Arguing is a method of dealing with conflict. In the argument culture "nearly everything is framed as a battle or game in which winning or losing is the main concern." The pillars of argument rest on this win-lose idea. Argument is expressed through "polarized", two sided, debates and battles. The result elicits a winner and a resolved conflict.
This method is commonly used in the "Western culture in general, and in the United States in particular". It is also used by "individuals of Eastern European background", "Jewish tradition", and in some Indian cultures.
Joanna Repczynski, for example, had an experience in her visit to France. Her host kept initiating "a heated intellectual debate over dinner." When Joanna agreed, another argument would be on its way. Another example is Andrea Talarico. When her "Italian-American family" argues, their "voices would raise and objects would be thrown in an intense discussion". Another example is the Japanese woman who is married to a Frenchman. The Frenchman started arguments with his wife. Finally when she argued back, "he was overjoyed" rather than getting upset.
The advantages of arguments are various. In the case of Joanna and her host, the host felt as if arguing would "keep things interesting". Agreement was just to boring. "Andrea sees advantages to her Italian-American family's style: "We always know how each other feels at all times."" This is a sign of her family's closeness. The Frenchman was overjoyed that his wife...