ABSTRACT
Let me first make clear that I am never contentious. It is not that I do not want to be, it is just that I disagree with how the term is used. Contentiousness is often looked upon as a personality trait or mark of bad behaviour. But this just avoids the crux of the matter-that contentiousness always occurs in relation to something or someone. There have to be at least two persons for one of them to be quarrelsome, and then it is the little guy who appears contentious in the eyes of the big guy. The father accuses his son of being impertinent when the boy remarks that he does not like the food on his plate. The teacher accuses the schoolboy of impertinence when he struggles to explain himself. Contentiousness has often been looked upon as a term of abuse in the past, belonging in the same order of things as authoritarianism, masculine methods of child-raising, (military) hierarchies, and the top dog-underdog dichotomylabels used by men about men. But insubordination has also been associated with healthy freedom-loving masculinity, with the demands on the schoolboy to achieve male independence. Rousseau transformed little Emile’s contentious behaviour into a democratic principle of self-expression. The would-be ferocious bite of the wolf was transformed into the care-free youngster’s mischievous teasing.
