Alternative Editorial: We Don't Agree
We live in a world of disagreement. This is not simply a socio-political phenomenon; it is a simple and profound reality arising from the human condition. We disagree with those closest to us as much as those at a distance - although probably about quite different issues, with different degrees of importance. The people we disagree with most could be as close as a sister or a life-partner. Or, more common still, with ourselves.
How many times in a day are we caught in a paradox of our own making? I think this, but on the other hand, I also think the opposite. For example: there's nothing more important than democracy. On the other hand, democracy has failed us - the power remains in the hands of the few. Or more mundanely: without money I can't do anything significant. On the other hand, money is the cause of the problem in the first place. Or: let's stop talking and get on with the action, at the same time thinking let's stop everything and sense more deeply into the real problem. We are internally at odds with ourselves, constantly.
The late comedian Ken Campbell developed a challenging - and brilliant – show/workshop around the idea that each of us have two entirely different personalities arising out of the two sides of our face. Not just contrary parts of the same person, but two different histories of thought, often different genders. Borrowing somewhat from Jung's idea of enantiodromia he invented a side to his character - Pigspurt - who entirely contradicted his 'better self'. Each time he performed it, people came out with new insights about why they react to certain problems in complex ways.
Psychology too, backs up the idea of the multiple personalities within one person. Each of us is not so much a singular character as a soap opera of characters. Each one carrying a detailed story about why life is the way it is. If you doubt this, try it out for yourself: in the course of day, catch yourself reacting to your environment and note down the words you used in the process. Include your behaviour on social media and the way you talk to your family. Add the way you talk to yourself. You'll find there are 'many voices' in your head that you have magically integrated as a composite identity.
Even so, in organised society, we resist the idea that disagreement is inevitable and design instead for agreement. Our politics is a contest with a winner instead of an ecology of different perspectives working together to build the future. Is that because on principle, we all have to be able to concur - whipped into agreement - in order for anything to happen? Yet over years and decades that has proven ineffective. Governments find it difficult to deliver on promises that imagine a coherence - a rightness - that can simply be imposed upon a much more complex reality.
For example, welfare does not give people the security or freedom to act that it hopes to. In a wider context in which up to half of society is against 'hand outs' to people they judge to be 'undeserving', those receiving Universal Credit are subject to all sorts of restraints and limitations on their ability to work or be creative with their time. A Universal Basic Income on the other hand, would give everyone the same money irrespective of them 'deserving it' or not.
Too often (and we ourselves, at the Alternative, are guilty of this), we claim that binary takes on reality are problematic. Yet, at the initial point of attention, everything in our mundane reality appears within a duality: day and night, forwards backwards, yes or no - opposites ad infinitum.
Dwelling on each of these however, reveals a continuum between them - thousands of points on a bridge between one and the other. From young to old lies at least seventy annual points of reference. In a society all of these co-exist and share several common experiences (for example, the weather).
Of course, when we are invested in the competitive culture that binary representation offers, we move quickly to polarisation - creating as much difference between one side and another as possible. In these extremities, the call for solidarity and unity at each end of the spectrum is stronger than ever.
As if brooking dissent is enough to undo the very fragile illusion that agreement is everything. How many people get trapped by ideology that insists that real change can only happen by a prevailing set of rules, ensuring that all participants are 'on message'?
If you are reading this and think you are not one who has fallen for the fallacy of agreement, double check yourself. Are you designing the future based on the idea that it will be led by people who share values? Are you designing intricate workshops to get people to behave in ways they would otherwise avoid? Do you write manifestos that present the best of ideals but ignore the more mundane realities?
When we organise to work only with those that are like us - homophily - what do we imagine will happen to the rest? We love the idea of coming together with like-minded people but forget how quickly that common ground can give way to internal disagreement.
Over time, we notice how our field of shared endeavour is not making an impact on the wider world - largely because we are not doing anything new. And those we have excluded are being organised by those with more resources than we have, giving rise to populist movements.
The perspective on reality that we call Planet A at the Alternative Global is a space of dynamic disagreement, radical inclusion and a focus on our common desire to flourish - albeit with diverse priorities. This space will be populated by many people who agree to disagree and welcome a diversity of approaches to the widest of problems, within containers that allow integration and traction.
The culture implies a capacity for different forms of agency co-existing - thinkers, builders, imagineers but also those who prefer to dance or play football or hang out.
We might say this society already exists… but feel free to argue with that. Either way the challenge remains for each of us to find our agency within it - as individuals, as communities - and not be trapped by the idea that nothing happens unless we are like-minded. With a common goal as broad as the desire to enrich our lives and create a future for our children, we can find ourselves in action together - even as we bicker about the wider implications of what we are doing.
In the last months of his life, integral teacher Terry Patten noted how he was experiencing clearly contradicting thoughts and feelings more and more. His passion for exploring the journey towards death contradicted a strong desire to stay alive and be with this extended family of friends and relatives.
As Terry advanced into his illness, he described a plethora of different clearly contrasting feelings - and a new ability to hold them all in tension. His joy in this enhanced capacity, at a moment of otherwise justifiable grief, was a privilege to witness. Is this what an evolved human being might be capable of in the future - with a developed response-ability for the whole of society?
Meantime, that more ordinary willingness to accept others as simply different from us but still worthy of respect can be found in surprising places. Maybe less in places where wealth has given people too much choice and rendered then unable to tolerate others who don't share their lifestyle or discourse. Maybe more amongst people who rarely claim to understand what is right and wrong but hope to get on with everyone regardless.