Read on Twitter
Thread
Can we be trusted to disagree?
What is it that makes disagreement so difficult? If there was no disagreement, no challenge, we’d be complicit in group-think. And yet disagreements seem to become so personalised, so quickly.
Can we be trusted to disagree?
What is it that makes disagreement so difficult? If there was no disagreement, no challenge, we’d be complicit in group-think. And yet disagreements seem to become so personalised, so quickly.
When it became clear that the Prime Minister was seriously ill, our humanity came to the surface in a genuine and heartfelt way. Many of his political opponents felt no need to say, “Much as I disagree with his politics…” – they simply expressed genuine, unqualified sympathy.
So it is possible to remember that we are all human, and each of us is frail in our own way. Is it possible to carry that humanity into our disagreements? There’s no vapid or easy answer. Each of us will have our red lines – lines which, if crossed, make us see red.
We’re going to need to work out a new settlement that takes us from where we are to where we need to be. Even if broad agreement emerges that we can’t go back to the way we were, there will be a pretty wide range of views about where to go next and how to get there.
One thing I have learned is that it is easier to challenge or disagree when there is a high level of trust. In that context, we know that the challenger is challenging our evidence, our ideas and our thinking, and not challenging our character or our right to have a view.
In contrast some of the unkindest comments on social media come from people or groups who feel completely alienated. They have no sense of being trusted except by those who agree with them, and no experience of trusting, or being trusted by, someone who does not share their views
When there is low trust or no trust, it becomes easy or normal to denigrate people or groups with whom you disagree. There is no need to try to understand their arguments, and it is acceptable – even welcomed – among your peers to treat “others” as less than human.
We know that this need not be the norm. The evidence is that we can find other modes. We know that challenge to a proposal generally improves the solution. And the evidence also suggests that trust matters.
So, a thought. If you or I need urgent clinical help in this phase of Covid-19, will we ask the nurse, the paramedic, the porter, the doctor or the pharmacist who they voted for last time round, what their stance is on constitutional issues, or which football team they support?
If you need your food delivered will you ask the delivery driver the same questions? If your drain blocks will you ask the plumber?
We’re quite prepared to trust our lives, our food supply and our ability to wash our hands to someone we don’t know, because we believe that they will do a professional job to the best of their ability, and have our best interests at heart.
Could we learn to trust one another with each other’s ideas and opinions, to secure a better future for us all?
