Thoughts About Thinking: In Praise of DisagreementWould you promise me something?by Gerald Angelo Cirrincione
Promise me that you will never agree with me. At least not completely, and never automatically. Promise me that you will always look for something in my columns that you disagree with, some point you take exception to, some premise that you perceive to be ignorant or invalid. Is there a worse nightmare than being at the forefront of a school of non-thinkers, swimming together unquestioningly, like fish? Or anything more sterile, boring, and self-defeating than a game of Simon Says wherein Simon proclaims, "Agree with this," and every other person instantly does? I agree with nobody, least of all myself. When I say that I don't agree with myself, I mean this in four major ways. Firstly, I feel no obligation to think the same thing tomorrow that I thought yesterday. In fact, today is an expedition-from yesterday's point of view to tomorrow's. I am in a constant state of intellectual transition. And that demands disagreement. Secondly, I frequently question my own assumptions, methods, and conclusions. This involves shifting perspectives and seeking alternate explanations for the same data. How many different ways are there to interpret events? How many explanations other than my own could there be? Thirdly, I often try to imagine possible disagreements that others might have with my words and ideas. I try to guess how particular thinkers I know, or know of, might criticize and dispute my thoughts. What might they object to, add, or subtract? Fourthly, I vigorously work against the lingering irrational influences of my past, the remnants in my mind of the falsehoods and irrationalities that were imposed upon me as a child by a society that is anti-thinking. I carefully sift through my thinking and dispute any remaining erroneous effects of the four potential fountains of foolishness: patriotism, familism, religiosity, and commercialism. Disagreeing with oneself in the above four ways is important, but it is limited and no substitute for disagreement from others, which is why I have asked you to disagree with me. When I ask you to disagree, I am definitely asking a lot. To take the time to understand another and then to voice one's disagreement is an act of companionship. Disagreement-distinct difference among viewpoints-is the dynamic by-product of thinking freely, independently, and for oneself. On the other hand, agreement-sharing one viewpoint-is static. Such motionless inertia may be fine for cows and cowards, but not for thinkers. Agreement creates groups; disagreement creates individuals. Disagreement sharpens thinking skills; agreement allows them to get dull and rusty. Disagreement will make you stronger. Weak people become addicted to the warmth and security of agreement, the restful uniformity of it. Agreement seduces them into mental laziness, sapping their vigor. Disagreeing-really disagreeing, intelligently disagreeing-calls for communication, understanding, analysis, comparison, and courage. Responsible disagreement is not just some incoherent anger. It is not lashing out in a blind reaction. It is not instantaneous dismissal of the other's statement. Disagreement, genuinely thoughtful disagreement, is an even-tempered, sensitive, caring critique. First of all, it involves an understanding of what has been said. And a double-checking of what has been said, to make sure that it has been understood correctly. In some cases, this may even involve checking with the originator of the utterance to see if it has been understood the way that he or she meant it. Before we can disagree with someone's ideas, we must know what he or she is talking about. Otherwise we may be disagreeing with something that has not been said. Thus a phase prior to disagreement is necessary-one of communication and checking the communication. Disagreement initially entails listening to the other's message and really attempting to understand it in the other's own terms. We need to understand what those words mean to him or her. Otherwise, we do not have a disagreement, we have a mis- communication or a misunderstanding. Such meticulous communication requires respect, integrity, and effort. Because everybody is always allowed to disagree with anything anywhere, you are allowed to take exception at any time. But many people seem to disagree prematurely. They react quickly, before the other person has been understood. Disagreement presupposes communication and understanding. Disagreement is the reason that communication exists. If all sentient beings in the universe agreed, communication would be redundant and boring. Communication is not supposed to lead to agreement. Its purpose is to illuminate. Disagreement is also the reason for the marketplace. If everybody everywhere wanted to provide the same product or service, what would be the motivation for a business transaction? There is a disagreement at the basis of every sale or barter. Let's say, for example, I purchase two widgets from you for the sum of five ducats. This would mean that you find five ducats more valuable than two widgets, whereas I find two widgets more valuable. Economics is the study of how we meet one another's wants and needs by virtue of the fact that we disagree. Disagreement drives the economy. Mutually beneficial transactions can happen when we clarify the exact nature of this disagreement and then specify it exactly, in the simplest terms, in a win/win contract. But doesn't disagreement, when encouraged and permitted to have free rein, escalate? Doesn't it lead to irritations, quarrels, brawls, feuds, persecutions, and even wars? Doesn't it promote enmity, discord, and hatred? No, these things do not arise out of disagreeing. Quite the contrary. Violence arises out of an opposition to disagreeing, out of a demand for agreement. It is caused by the harmful notion that the purpose of human life is to agree with as many other people as possible and to get as many other people as possible to agree with you. Violent people have a low tolerance for disagreement. You grow as a human being as you learn to tolerate more and more disagreement, so that you can both express and receive disagreement without becoming overly nervous or upset. When you decide to take greater risks of disagreeing or of letting others disagree with you, it can be scary. You will annoy other people sometimes. Your own feelings may be hurt when others don't see things the way you do. Develop the art of disagreeing easily and of making it easy for others to disagree with you. This is a lifelong learning. I have been talking up until now as though agreement is possible, as though such a thing exists. But, in fact, agreement is a mirage, an illusion, a hoax. It appears to exist only when we take a limited or superficial look at what two people think. If we could take movies of people's minds and compare them, we would discover that there is no such thing as agreement. The nuances and images and ways of interpreting and making sense of things are always different. Agreement is a fluke, a rare coincidence, an accident. Thinking is about self-integrity. It is about thinking your own way through things. If your way coincides with someone else's, that's okay, but don't take that personally. That doesn't mean that you agree with her. Not at all. It means that you happen to see things the same way to the extent that you have explored your views. Be assured that down the line you will discover differences, disagreements if you like. People who strive for agreement are trying to do the impossible. DISAGREEMENT IS THE NORMAL STATE. Regard anything else with suspicion. Don't band together with people because you think the way they do, or they think the way you do. Beneath agreement is always a passion to break free. Create places where there is no need for anybody to ever conceal or suppress a disagreement. Associate with people who expect disagreement, who value it, who accept it as the natural, healthy, honest phenomenon that it is. Gerald Angelo Cirrincione's thoughtful interviewing style on both his radio program "Jazz & Conversation" and his cable-TV series "Omniverse" won him the praise of, among others, Steve Allen. Currently living in Marinette, Wisconsin, Gerald has now devoted himself to writing and has recently begun work on his first book.
Table of Contents | 1994 Issues | Subscribe Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996 |