Being Extreme

More often than I enjoy it, I hear the following argument against XP.

"Extreme Programming can't serve (serious/real/Enterprise) software making right, because being extreme is never a good thing. We must be very careful when it comes to extremism, because any extremism, regardless of what it prones, is dangerous."

"Extremism," as used here, is what Christophe Thibaut calls a Weapon Word. It isn't used to convey meaning in a context of ideas exchange, but to close discussion in a context of power negociation -- ultimately, the power of deciding what meaning should be attached to what word. The power to parallel XP with extremism, hinting at unmentionable -- because disproportionate -- analogies of politic or religious nature.

Note that what is at stake here is not what links Extreme Programming to Extremism -- maybe "extreme" and "extremism" common root? -- nor is it what your religious or politic beliefs are. What is at stake is, why does the person feel entitled to slide from a technical discussion (ways to make software) to a judgemental one (the virtue of being tolerant). Chances are, they're not trying to understand the ideas you're bringing to the table; they're merely exerting the power the situation confer them to shutdown ideas they understand as a threat to their very position of power. The systemic stasis goes this way: I'm in power, I have the power to defend my position, thus I defend it, thus I remain in power.

In such a context, explicitating the meaning of the words you are using is pointless. You are attacking a position of power, and you're heading in response for defensive acts that will most likely outpower you. No matter how much you feel invested in having your interlocutor understand your point, you have to realize you have entered a verbal joust, based on puns, insults and other socio-culturally constructed meanings. You basically have three options :

• Stop the discussion: "All my apologies if you feel I've wasted your time. Thanks for your insight Bye."
• Go meta: exhibit what is at stake (what entitles the person to go from technical to judgemental), discuss how you feel about it, and eventually bring the conversation back to what you have to say. Here, you would probably hint at your feeling of being shutdown by the very person who ask for more tolerance on your part.
• Go subversive: embrace the verbal joust, and put your interlocutor in a position where they have to either say "this is not what I meant" or "I am the very archetype I criticize". Here, it could go this way -- "Extremists are dangerous indeed. Especially extremists who value extreme moderation." The shorter, the better. Think of zen slap.

I find the third type of answers being the most effective one. It seems daunting and hard at the beginning but the good news is, there aren't so many different weapon words. With little practice they become easy to spot -- which prevent you from wasting energy trying to make your point. With a little more, you will start having your own creative answers to them.

(An exercise left to the reader : there are at least eight more weapon words/locution in the initial quote. Find them out and figure out different ways to answer them.)