I'd much rather have 15 people arguing about
something
than 15 people splitting into two camps,
each side convinced it's right and not talking to the other.
Linus
Torvalds
It is one of the least examined constants of the human condition,
of human behaviour: the propensity to argue and disagree.
Ever since man took his first human steps circa 300,000 years
ago, human beings have been arguing and disagreeing (A &
D) over almost everything. In light of the unhappiness, despair
and violence triggered by A & D, we should have long ago
been disposed to query why evolutionary biology saw fit to
preserve -- through thick and thin, through war and pogrom
– the intractable disposition. If there was a prototype
of the human being that was short-changed on the A & D
reflex, it didn’t make the cut: it was deselected.
Everywhere
in the world men and women and even the young tots they once
were argue over matters large and small, of great or no consequence,
as if A & D are vampiric hungers that must be fed on a
regular basis. The disposition is so insistent (primordial)
that when people find themselves alone, they argue with themselves.
Many
disagreements are frivolous in nature. It matters not if friends
X and Y disagree on who is the better athlete or song writer.
But even in matters of no apparent consequence, if one or
the other insists s/he is right, that is infallibly right,
the failure to find a consensus can result in the dissolution
of the relationship and may even degenerate into violence.
When nations differ over who owns a particular tract of land,
or the rights to water from a river that passes through several
political jurisdictions, it matters very much on who prevails.
In these instances, A & D are proxies in the war of words
that often erupt into national and international conflicts.
Unlike
all other forms of life, human beings are endowed with the
faculty of choice. Where differences exist, where one choice
is ostensibly better or worse than the other, people will
invariably disagree and argue over what constitutes the best
choice.
So
we ask: what does nature intend in respect to A & D? What
benefits accrue to the species as a consequence of arguing
and disagreeing?
First
and foremost, when one idea prevails over another, the winning
individual or team will enjoy a more advantageous position
in whatever hierarchy is being contested, as well as first
access to the human and natural resources required to bring
whatever it is under consideration to completion. Secondly,
A & D creates a learning environment that brings to light
both the merits and demerits of the idea under discussion
which makes the entire process or exercise one of the means
by which both idea and species fitness are maintained. One
could argue that every argument is a contest of values.
We
know that when two ideas (for ex. two opposing visions of
governance) are competing for dominance, disagreement is instrumental
in revealing the substance and nuances of the choices which
greatly facilitates making the case for the fitness of one
idea over the other. In the absence of disagreement (constructive
debate) we are more likely to make an incorrect decision.
If a tribe is debating how to best defend a territory, it
is in everyone’s vital interest that the correct decision
be made. The debate will encourage a discussion on the various
types of attack it might face, and how best to respond.
A
& D is essentially a winnowing process that enhances knowledge
and understanding. But we all know of powerful, charismatic
individuals who successfully push through ideas that are strictly
self-serving, or to the detriment of the greater good, which
is not what nature intends. If we are to honour the blood,
sweat and lives lost on account of A & D, it is essential
that reason prevail over the egos at the table.
When
two farmers argue over what irrigation method is most effective
in getting the best yield of a crop, and one method is shown
to be demonstrably more productive, all farmers stand to gain.
However, if for one of the combatants pride is the supreme
value, which prevents him from recognizing the superior argument
of his adversary, the disagreement is likely to turn hostile.
In such instances that are all too common in the daily affairs
of man, not the wise, but the strongman wins the day, leaving
the many to suffer the consequences of a flawed decision.
The jaundice coloured haze that hovers like a pestilence over
our cities is a rude example of the strongman prevailing over
the wise (caring) man.
The
success or failure of a relationship or marriage very often
depends on being able to weather the bad weather produced
by argument and disagreement. A wife feels strongly that her
husband should learn a second language since a significant
percentage of his clientele speaks that language and he risks
losing his position to someone who is bilingual. Each presents
his/her contrary views. But the husband, due to either sloth
or having convinced himself that it makes no difference whether
or not he speaks the same language as his client, or that
he’s the man of the house and therefore the last word,
refuses his wife’s arguments. If his wife proves to
be correct, he will have jeopardized his employment and perhaps
the marriage. But whatever the result, A & D has done
its job: the issues have been articulated and the opportunities
to make the correct decision maximized.
A
& D is the crack in human relationships that lets the
light in so that differences of opinion are exposed and stripped
down to their essentials. If the wrong choice is made, and
it often is, evolutionary biology cannot be blamed. A &
D has done its work in that the relevant information on a
given issue has been brought to bear. That reason, at this
stage in human evolution, is not adequately equipped to deal
with pride, vanity and the territorial imperative in the decision
making process is less a failure of will than a concession
to our biological pre-sets.
In
our present age, A & D shines an ominous light on the
catastrophe that awaits in the event of nuclear or biological
warfare. If it is clearly in the best interest of the species
that these weapons of mass destruction are never deployed,
it is essential that reason, and not self-interest, has its
finger on the button.
Since
reason often comes out second best in matters of disputation,
must we finally conclude that human nature, formed hundreds
of thousands of years ago when man was living in tribes and
hunting wild game in the savannah, no longer serves the best
interests of the species? Has the time has come to consider
tweaking our genotype?
From
Thomas More (1516) to the present, one of the constants in
the design of Utopias – from the Greek ou-topos,
which means no place, nowhere – is the absence of conflict
(argument and disagreement). Utopias typically mistake wishful
thinking for vision, for if conflict were eliminated and people
always agreed with each other, not only would nothing (or
indiscriminately everything) get done, all differences and
distinctions would dissolve in a homogeneous relativist mist.
In the real world, utopia would very quickly degenerate into
dysfunctionality.
Ethology,
the study of animal behaviour, makes the case that argument
and disagreement predate human existence. When two animals
are competing for the right to impregnate the females, the
contestants are disagreeing over whose seed deserves a future
hearing, which is what nature intends. If they don’t
come to an understanding, they will fight, sometimes to the
death. If there was only agreement among the males, and inferior
males were allowed to breed, the genetic fitness of the species
would be compromised over time.
In
theory, our legal systems represent A & D’s greatest
triumph. Justice, based on impartiality of law, deems as inadmissible
arguments or positions that are partial to power and influence.
When impartiality is compromised and the results of A &
D rendered null and void, resulting in an incorrect decision,
both the individual and society at large suffer the consequences,
which reinforces the argument that despite the stress and
unhappiness left in the wake of argument and disagreement,
we would be significantly worse off in their absence. Without
resistance and challenge, our ideas, our way of life, will
not evolve and respond to our ever changing needs and circumstance.
Argument
and disagreement, despite their unflattering (embarrassing)
public displays, speak to the universal disposition to want
the best of whatever is at stake to prevail. As a method,
A & D best ensure the improvements upon which every civilization
depends for its advancement.
If
in the heat of battle we come to view A & D as a grim
gauntlet that most of us would rather not run, we can take
comfort in the knowledge that the most successful species
thus far on earth is the one for whom A & D underwrites
all its decisions and best guarantees its future. And for
all of us who during the course of a lifetime will come out
second best in an argument, that is the occasion to turn defeat
and humiliation into an opportunity to better appreciate a
disposition that can at once shatter the ego while serving
the best interests of the individual and the race.
