Agree to Disagree—Debate in an Era of Divisiveness

NOTE: Although this essay is a discussion that includes politics and ideologies, it does not take a stance on any particular ideology or political persuasion, nor is it based on any specific political or ideological perspective.

A friend and I were having a light conversation this past weekend around a fire pit, and a subject came up on which we disagreed. He and I differ in our opinions that largely follow political leanings. We had never talked about it, but I had heard him say some things that made his politics reasonably clear. When he said something that I disagreed with, my first reaction was, “Oh, shit, there goes the relaxed atmosphere.” But then I thought, “Why can’t we have an honest disagreement and not make it personal or political?” It is possible, although seemingly less and less achievable these days. So I gave it a shot. In a very polite way, I said that I was in favor of something that he thought was wrong. And a miracle happened! He said, “Well then, we should agree to disagree,” noting that he hated how hard it was to do that these days. It was fantastic. We dropped the subject and got on with our enjoyable evening.

Why is it so hard to disagree in a civil way?

It has become much more challenging to disagree in recent times. Everyone used to watch the same news and had the same encyclopedias (fogey alert!), so people could check the facts quickly enough. Even disagreements about politics were not taken so personally as they are now. It seems that people of different opinions live in two different realities. And if someone lives in the other reality, they’re intellectually and morally suspect and threaten the core of the person they disagree with. This situation is strongly supported by social media, where anyone can post anything, and it is also supported by biased news reporting, ideologically specific information sources, and people constantly spinning issues and events toward a particular perspective. Everyone is firmly ensconced in their political and ideological camps, each with its own facts and events, so anything that comes up can immediately become contentious.

What happened to open-mindedness

One of the big reasons for this situation is that people have diverse perspectives on morality, values, social norms, religion, and social responsibility. People tend to hold firmly to their perspectives and guard against opposing viewpoints. It’s easy to call this closed-mindedness, but having an open mind can be difficult if one considers a particular perspective immoral and goes against one’s vision for society. Certain groups would undoubtedly consider my perspective on some issues completely closed-minded as I am not flexible. I am not open to any arguments in support of particular viewpoints. To make an extreme example, I’m against murder. Certain people view murder as a means toward their goals. They don’t call it murder (or terrorism). I would never entertain murder as a means to any end. So, in this instance, I am closed-minded.

So, being open-minded in a divisive society is easier said than done. 

Is agreeing to disagree a cop-out?

How can we make progress if we agree to disagree? How can we move forward as a society? The obvious answer is through the democratic process, but many would argue it is broken. So, returning to my friend and I around a firepit, should we have agreed to disagree so readily? Getting to know people—even those we disagree with—is critical to moving forward. We tend to gravitate toward like-minded people, but if we restrict ourselves to only those people, society’s divisions will get worse. If we are inclusive in our associations, we may find common ground that we didn’t know existed. 

Many would call this perspective naive, as it has a lot of problems. One is that it is problematic to be friendly with someone whose views you consider offensive or immoral. Another is that, to have a civil relationship with someone with whom you have fundamentally different worldviews and ideologies, you would have to avoid a lot of conversation topics. Some people can be close with people, have healthy debates, and be specific on their common ground. I wish I were one of them.

So, I do agree to disagree. I do avoid specific topics of conversation. I do veer away from the red flags that I hear. I’m not saying these habits are ideal for finding common ground or getting away from divisiveness, but they let me keep my friends, who, aside from some misguided opinions and beliefs (wink, wink), are good people.

You don’t like this approach? Fine, let’s agree to disagree…