'Loyal Opposition'
It's Okay To Disagree; in Fact, Disagreement Can Be Beneficial
Alchemy. Catharsis. Insight. Expansion.
All require pressure, challenge, and effort.
Sometimes we choose the challenge, sometimes we don’t. Regardless, there is potential for growth in challenge.
Some of the best challenges come from a difference in understanding or perspective. Human beings differ in their understandings of and perspectives on the same experiences because we have been exposed to and have learned to focus on different data.
It’s infinitely beneficial to the whole to share the data we’ve collected and how we’ve learned to synthesize it, with each other! The infinite potential here resides in our ability to refine the collective data and perspective, through refining our individual perspectives and holding space for ‘what we can all agree on.’
While ‘what we can all agree on’ is a tiny subset of data, especially considering how much there still is to learn, this minute subset is essential to our species living in a shared paradigm. EVEN THOUGH THIS SUBSET CONTINUES TO BENEFIT FROM REFINING, it is paramount to our ability to collaborate. Perhaps there is nothing that everyone agrees on, AND there are a few things that almost everyone can agree on. Most of these shared perspectives are very basic, and all are based on observation with minimal interpretation.
I enjoy the definition of ‘collective consciousness’ that Drs. Brett and Heather Weinstein offer in their book “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century”. I won't attempt an exact quote for not having the book on my person at the moment- and I highly recommend you read the book yourself. The definition lends itself to the idea that the collective consciousness is what can be, and is, discussed amongst members of our species. Let’s note that this is very different from Carl Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious, and not confuse the two.
So, through refining our collective consciousness, much like refining our individual consciousnesses, we come to understand ourselves and our environment with greater clarity.
And this requires disagreement.
Furthermore, it requires debate and honest debate at that.
What do I mean by honest debate? All parties must arrive at the conversation willing to honestly confront themselves and what data is presented for them to integrate into their current models. All parties must be willing to push back, to defend their perspective by pointing out the nuanced strengths of their viewpoint that the other parties might not see. All parties must be willing to refine their mental model, admit when they don’t understand or know something, ask questions, and play devil’s advocate with themselves.
This honest debate requires vulnerability, courage, strength, and interdependence. It requires humility. It requires an agreement- at least unspoken and, ideally, spoken- that there are larger stakes than any ramifications for any of the individuals. Honest debate requires a sacred understanding of loyal opposition.
What is loyal opposition?
Loyal opposition is a term that recognizes the sanctity of both the foundational and higher purpose of a push and pull between groups to aid in making decisions.
According to Wikipedia and the sources listed on the Loyal opposition page, “In parliamentary systems of government, the loyal opposition is the opposition parties in the legislature. The word loyal indicates that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet while remaining loyal to the formal source(s) of the government's power, such as the monarch or constitution. This loyalty allows for a peaceful transition of power and ongoing strengthening of democratic institutions. The idea of inquisitorial opposition that held the executive to account emerged in the United Kingdom.
…
The phrase is derived from John Hobhouse stating His Majesty's Loyal Opposition in 1826 in a debate in the British parliament. It is intended to illustrate that Members of Parliament in a country's legislature may oppose the policies of the incumbent government—typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber—while maintaining deference to the higher authority of the state and the larger framework within which democracy operates.
The concept thus permits the dissent necessary for a functioning democracy without fear of being accused of treason.”
This term is originally political, but I posit that it can be applied to discernment and synthesis of moralities, social constructs, and even the self-concept.
Loyal opposition allows us to have the benefits of both cooperation and competition.
Iron sharpens iron. Having people around us who challenge us, implicitly and explicitly grows us. This is a way we are held accountable to our potential. Criticism builds character, in one direction or another.
As we seek to become a more emotionally aware species, in a modern life filled with endocrine system disruptors and hypernovelty, many of us have become incredibly sensitive. There are advantageous benefits to sensitivity, like being more aware of one’s environment and predisposed to interoception. And there can also be devasting consequences when this character trait is not nurtured in a balanced, honest way. Ignoring and over-identifying with this trait can result in hypervigilance, overwhelm, reactivity, and much more.
I bring this up because, as I’ve made a journey from being so incredibly sensitive it was debilitating to feeling just as strong as I do sensitive, I’ve seen that these traits hone each other. And I see an increasing amount of people who are so much more sensitive than they are strong that they are asking other people to change how they are to fit the needs of these super sensitive people.
I’m not talking about the ask to change behavior that is violent towards another person’s body or property. I’m talking about the ask to change perspectives, words, understandings, actions, etc. that do not threaten the body or property of another individual.
I’ve been on both sides of this asking. It happens at the interpersonal level, group, and community levels. Having lived through it, my take is that this is a dramatically inefficient way to respond to this kind of situation, to ask that someone or some other group change to create more comfort for the person or group who is uncomfortable. This method creates and perpetuates victimization.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” as an ideal? At what age are we now expected to embrace that? It no longer seems an ideal at all in many groups. And this is to the tremendous detriment of people in those groups, who are not nearly as prepared to live as a human being.
Furthermore, in response to this increasing sensitivity, many people have sought increasingly comfortable lives, in which they want to invest decreasing effort. This has required avoiding opposition to their chosen approach (including internally- cue the cognitive dissonance), as that would be quite uncomfortable. As time goes on this approach requires one to avoid opposition in general.
And so, for some individuals and groups, loyalty to the opposition is beginning to crumble.
What happens when we stop promoting insight, greater understanding, and facts through honestly challenging each other?
Our perspectives grow weak, fantastical, and ungrounded.
We have forgotten the benefit of conflict! Perhaps it is because we have become so overrun by stimulation of every kind, including horrific violent conflicts that we wish we could wipe from the earth forever to the benefit of all. Perhaps this is why we have forgotten the benefits of debate, having a thick skin, laughing at ourselves and laughing when others laugh at us, respectfully challenging the people around us, and being able to hold up our end of the argument.
You don’t need to defend your perspectives to anyone.
But you should probably consider the consequences of not defending your perspectives to yourself.
And— sorry to break it to you— you’ll only get so far with that practice in your head. Remember, other humans are like mirrors, for all the potential parts of you. This includes the parts you choose not to express, the ones you didn’t know before that you could express, and the ones you hate.
No one can exactly understand another because of our uniqueness AND we still have species-wide traits and experiences that we benefit from knowing about in a way that is collectively understood.
How do we define what those are?
Through honest discussion! Challenging each other to remember what we’ve learned in the past and challenging each other to embrace discoveries. This push and pull generates…and what is generated depends on the quality of the push and pull.
The emerging cultures generally seeking to do away with the push and pull altogether by (1) eradicating challenge, conflict, and debate or (2) actually ‘beating’ the other side(s) out of existence have lost the point. Lacking competing interests and perspectives will cause culture, production, and insight to wither away, whether this happens peacefully or violently.
How can we relearn how to agree to disagree, enough to discuss and understand our disagreements deeply? Where is the motivation to find common ground, see everyone as human, and relate to our commonalities? How can we relearn how to compete honestly?
Where is the understanding that something more is at stake than any one side?
Remember, if everyone becomes like you (like me) or like your groups (or like my groups) we will all be screwed.