Disagree to Agree
Social pressure prevents argumentation, halting tangible social progress
We descend from tribal groups that flourished together and withered alone. Clinging to one another against the unforgiving brute of nature, our ancestors survived because of an important dualism—disagreement and agreement.
Finding the best method to hunt down, say, antelopes on the African savannah required not a sole arbiter, but individuals with varying and sometimes clashing opinions. In ideal circumstances, the fog of discord lifted, and the array of opinions merged into a clear best solution.
Realistically, the best choice was not always found immediately, but arose through a perpetual evolution of thought, a continual sharpening of ideas, and survival of the fittest. This cycle of disagreement and agreement is essential to the natural selection of good ideas.
Without disagreement, groupthink dominates and individual critical thinking diminishes. Without agreement, the tribe fails to cultivate solidarity and becomes inefficient in achieving goals. Today, as we face challenging decisions on how to move forward socially, politically and environmentally, we must not “agree to disagree” and go our separate ways from those whose opinions seem just too different from our own, but instead disagree in order to agree. If our goal is to improve our civilization and planet, the disagreement-agreement cycle is our only option.
At this point, it feels important, yet almost unnecessary, to state that America’s history of slavery and genocide is completely tragic, and the current displays of racial prejudice are soaked in misfortune. Yet, the goal of this article is not to despair over the situation, but sieve insight from it, and challenge each of us to improve our communication in order to improve our society. There is much to learn from America’s past few months.
The reactions to recent racial injustices across the United States, and particularly within the Santa Clara community, act as a window into the dynamic, social nature of group decision-making.
The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were tipping points. Many citizens were already dissatisfied with the relationship between police and Black Americans, but seeing a white police officer’s knee press into George Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds was, for many, a final straw.
Millions protested during a pandemic, celebrities employed their platforms and wealth, social media users posted pictures and patched together infographics in hopes of pervading the public with progressive thoughts and plans of action; like chain reactions, crowds of people rallied behind a common cause. To witness it, to partake in it, was absolutely beautiful.
The movement did, of course, have its share of criticism. Critics labeled protests and posts as pure virtue signals or pointless cries for pity. Critics claimed that sharing a post on Instagram or marching past a police department building accomplishes close to nothing in terms of real societal change. For a while, I was one of them. I was wrong.
Even without looking at the visible evidence, it makes sense that people will be inclined to follow an idea if they see others supporting it. Humans are afraid of exclusion and desire acceptance. All it takes is a brief introspection of our social interactions to prove it. Because of this characteristic, social justice movements were bound to have an impact. Additionally, companies and universities have a financial incentive to keep their customers happy. One way to do that is by showing support for the same causes.
For instance, Santa Clara responded diligently to student pressure following the death of George Floyd and the Campus Safety controversy. Administration met with Igwebuike student leaders and the Santa Clara police department, created the Athletics Committee on Diversity, introduced The Black Excellence Scholarship Fund, sponsored 51 faculty members to participate in the SpeakOut Summer Institute and much more. I’m sure that these actions were not merely gestures to appease a dissatisfied horde of students or virtue signals to improve the image of the University’s moral standing. I’m sure the administration genuinely does want racial justice.
Still, we operate within a capitalistic economy and a world of nuanced interpersonal interactions. So, anyone who says that posting pictures lacks efficacy vastly downplays the vitality of social entanglements in human reasoning. Humans are still social creatures. We still coexist in tribes, going lengths to protect our precious reputations and improve our precarious status. The current wave of social pressure for racial justice, born out of virtual activism, may appear futile on the surface, but actually possesses an alarmingly volatile potency.
Current solidarity around racial justice exemplifies how impactful humanity can be when we agree on a solution. Yet, social pressure seems to be discouraging a critical component in the process of finding the best solution: disagreement. When disagreement does occur, it typically bears no intellectual fruit; individuals shout their opinions at each other rather than talk to each other, quickly deeming their ideological differences irreconcilable. Much of our inability to effectively solve problems stems either from thoughtless agreement or abject disagreement.
Examples of the latter can be seen in our eroding political establishment. Politics, at the highest level, has become a war of partisanship, where my side is right and yours is wrong. Each side of the aisle continues to bicker back and forth over the control of Congress or the Supreme Court, distracting from their true purpose: to maintain and improve society. How effective can a government be if each half is on totally separate pages?
Thoughtless agreement is equally detrimental to progress. The very thing that has recently sparked positive change—social pressure—is a double-edged sword. Unsheathing and wielding social pressure against inequality has the potential to counteract the very thing for which its swordsman fights. Similar to the political realm, social activism—the promotion of social reform for the greater good—has been tainted by individual, close-minded egos. Some well-intentioned activists have lost a grip of the disagreement-agreement cycle, and concern themselves only with proving their own correctness, maximizing agreement, and canceling dissenters along the way.
As a result, those with differing opinions conduct a cost-benefit analysis and decide that asserting their ideas just isn’t worth the possibility of being canceled. Thus, they conform. Social pressure is powerful, and when too much is applied, critical thinking—the necessary tool for the consolidation of ideas—crumbles and groupthink prevails. As iron sharpens iron, so one idea sharpens another, especially when the two contradict.
Communal progression requires sharp and rigorous ideas. The courage to disagree and the openness to cast aside differences are the pillars of forging such ideas. It begins with accepting that we are wrong. It’s hard to admit sometimes, but we make mistakes. We blunder. We are all fallible. Each of us is completely capable of being incorrect on any given topic. What matters primarily is not the correctness of our opinions, but our ability to surrender them to criticism, and alter them when new evidence presents itself.
If we want to grow as individuals, as communities, as countries, we must accept our incorrectness, and open ourselves to frank deliberation and possibly argumentative discussions. In order to derive a rigorous plan of action to improve our lives and our planet, we must discuss ideas, not egos.