Agreement in Disagreement

As a people, we have got to find a way to disagree with one another that does not result in one side being demonised or the drawing of fistacuffs. This post is inspired by the recent resignation of the leader of the Liberal Democrats political party in Britain over comments he made regarding homosexuality and how it intersects with his faith (side stepping this issue here). See, I believe that we live in a society wherein disagreement, or anything negative has been banned by practice: we refuse to see the merit in anger, or anxiety or disagreement. If we never see the merit in these things how can we hope to understand them and use them for their intended purpose. If Disney's Inside Out can get this right, then why can't we?

Case in point: anger, frustration and sadness inspires people to fight for change, anxiety can keep you safe and, at it's baser level, acts as a warning signal (not downplaying how serious the mental health issue is but rather drawing upon my own experiences with the issue) and lastly disagreement can act as an avenue for genuine conversation. We, as a society, have created an environment wherein if your perception of reality (avoiding the philosophical implications here but what I refer to here is the reality that we all perceive reality differently by virtue of our experiences. This is not to give credence to conspiracy theorists of a Brightbart news level, but rather to acknowledge that at a baser level, my experience of life will forever be tainted because my dad died, someone else's because they 'coming out' was traumatic, someone else because their are incredibly privileged (example Donald mother fletching Trump)) is different from the mainstream narrative you are immediately silenced without chance to hear out the person. So if you believe racism, sexism, homophobia are non-existent, for example, rather than letting the person speak so as to question their beliefs and they question yours for an effective dialogue, we suppress theirs and expect them to take up the accepted narrative, despite no clear indication what that may be.

Yes, this may result is some truly deplorable things being said in public. But the one thing that absolutely frustrates me about modern day sexism and racism is that it got sneaky. At least in the past, if a person leered at me, I knew it was because I was from the colonies and they doubted my intelligence, here I don't know because they will immediately suppress that inclination without questioning its source. The suppression merely acts as a short term solution (you want proof, check the rise of right in the West with phenomena like Marine Le Pen, Trump, Nigel Farage). I'd much rather know someone's true feelings so that we can address them together rather than your lowkey racism affects every decision you make.

The ultimate result of this cult of suppression is that those whose opinions are suppressed or misunderstood in their entirety can only express them in the voting booth, or in the privacy of their own homes, where and when it is too late. We need to create protocol for disagreement. One that isn't reminiscent of the Purge but one that transcends the current model. We need to create a way to hear them out. One that moves away from Stalin's Great Purge or Mao's Cultural Revolution but one that, again, moves beyond the current model of toleration without truly considering the implications of what they said and how they are behaving.

Because in one form or another, we all disagree with something society tells us to do.

Untill next time,

The AWKward Girl Next door xx

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Happy Mothers' Day

So, England is Weird

Illegitimate Anger