SOCIETIES change over time. For a healthy and progressive social transformation, civilised dissent is the key. Unfortunately, the space for dissent is shrinking with each passing day. Since dissent is assuming the proportion of being a taboo, herd mentality, demagoguery and populism are assuming the shape of the new norms, and innovation and creativity are taking the backseat.

Throughout the primitive times, the intensity of innovation and ideas was much slower than one can imagine. This was partially because the dogmas and beliefs were not questioned.

Since questioning the existing order was systemically barred, mythologies, fallacies and sorcery reigned supreme. However, the ancient Greeks and Romans challenged the ossified perceptions spearheaded by those in power to shield their vested interests.

Socrates, for instance, was put to death on the accusations, among other things, of corrupting the youth and infecting them with maverick ideas. All he was doing was to encourage the young to question.

The origin of dialectical principles actually formed the character and mechanisms of dissent and disagreement. The term ‘dialectic’ delineates a philosophical methodology that involves contradicting arguments between the opposing sides. Perhaps the classical version of dialecticism was produced by Plato who debated back-and-forth, mainly focussing on dialogues between the character of Socrates and the interlocutors (person or group of persons he was talking with).

Hegel’s method, like other dialectic methods, depended on contradictory arguments between the opposing sides. In Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel discussed his epistemology and termed ‘opposing views’ the different states and definitions of consciousness. The Hegelian dialectical method thus stands for arguing against existing less-sophisticated definitions or views to generate more advanced ones.

Europe in its pre-enlightenment era barred questioning. Enlightened philosophers, like Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire, encouraged the people to think innovatively, and helped transform Europe. Resultantly, the debate in the West is healthy and civilised and always has the potential to lead one to some creative undertaking.

The world at large is not as fortunate, however, and dissent or disagreement is perceived to be the most disliked thing. Debates hardly produce constructive outcomes. A victory over the other, rather than mutual growth, is the main objective of debate in most societies. Civilised dissent is a rarity.

Since the times we are living in requires peoples and societies to innovatively adapt and adjust to newer dynamics, they need to recognise the fact that only through respecting the views of the others, and by encouraging civilised debate can they escape the trap of time and keep pace with the ongoing fast-paced global transformation.

Ali Hassan Bangwar
Kandh Kot

Published in Dawn, August 2nd, 2021