Dissent
dissent (v.)
early 15c., from Latin dissentire "differ in sentiments, disagree, be at odds, contradict, quarrel," from dis- "differently" (see dis-) + sentire "to feel, think" (see sense (n.)
Defining dissent from its roots, to feel or think differently, means that it occurs everywhere, all the time - and that's OK. In and of itself dissent is neither good nor bad, simply another interpretation of reality (See Pluralism). It is a subjective and internal thing not determined by the circumstances of a situation but by those perceiving it. It is the beginning of decision.
There is a tendency to think that dissent is bad due to associations with arguing or fighting. However these are responses to difference, not the difference itself. It may be understandable that visible, external responses are equated to the invisible, internal differences, but it is vital to separate the two; Whilst we have relatively little control over what we perceive, we have much more control over how we act.
Response
It is hopefully not surprising for you to hear that there are more approaches in responding to dissent than arguing and fighting. What approaches are there? A one-dimensional scale from 'competition' to 'cooperation' artificially simplifies the situation. A two-dimensional perspective in terms of 'cooperativeness' (What do you want?) and 'assertiveness' (What do I want?) highlights the approaches of 'avoidance', 'compromise' and separates 'competition' into the components of 'domination' and 'accommodation' (Rubel and Thomas, 1976).1
Another approach related to domination is 'destruction' and if third parties are considered, 'delegation' is yet another (Schwarz, 2005).2 These six approaches are explored in more detail.
Consent
In this approach, participants are assertive and cooperative in looking for a solution they can all agree to. Sometimes finding an agreeable solution can be as simple as communicating unknown information about the existing options, explaining background or clarifying details. Other times creative action is required to identify new options. Commonly seen in small, cohesive friend groups. Advantages include the increased likelihood of success in collective action since the participants are already in cooperation and agreement. Disadvantages include that participants can take a long/indefinite amount of time to find a consent solution instead of considering a compromise.
"Hey, wanna watch Castaway?
"Oh no, I just watched Seven Years A Slave and the racism made me so sad, I couldn't watch another -"
"Hang on! Castaway is about a guy who gets stranded on an island and makes friends with a football!"
"Omfg rly? I love films about islands!"
"u do? Amaze! LEtz watch it nowwww"
Compromise (Synonyms: Consensus)
In this approach, participants are somewhat assertive and somewhat cooperative in looking for a solution they can mostly accept. This approach also requires active cooperation as participants must move from their original preferences to some middle-ground. As with Consent, communicating information and exploring options will help find the best compromise - and who knows, perhaps a consent option could be found in the process. Can be seen in functioning teams. Advantages include that participants are already in cooperation. Disadvantages include that participants may not have enthusiasm to implement the decision, especially if the compromise was large.
"And how about ice-cream for dessert?"
"Actually, I'm vegan now so no thanks. How about bananas?"
"Yeah well... sounds bit too healthy for me. Could we could try frying them?"
"Hmm, I never did before but I'm happy to try it."
Delegation
In this approach, participants are unassertive and cooperative towards a third party who decides on a solution. Participants unable to resolve their difference in a mutually acceptable way can seek the decision of a third party. This approach requires a third party the judgment of whom will be respected by the other participants - you could see delegation as the equal domination by a third party (See Domination below). Seen in courtrooms. Advantages include the integration of perspective/wisdom from an uninvolved (or at least, less involved) party. Disadvantages include that participants lose the opportunity to exercise constructive thinking leading to a reduced ability to resolve dissent in the future and that it has an external dependency (the third party).
"Mom, mom, mom - he hit me!"
"Only because he hit me firssst!"
"You both know that hitting is not tolerated in this house, boys. Now grow up and go to your rooms."
"Aww mom... OK mom" (X2)
Domination-Accommodation
Synonyms: Competition, Authority, Hierarchy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Majority-Minority
In this approach, some participants are assertive and uncooperative whilst others are unassertive and cooperative. The position of participants is unequal: some having more power than the other. Advantages include that dominated participants can outsource their responsibility. Disadvantages include passiveness and dependency in the accommodating participant (slave mentality) and tyrrany in the dominating participant (ruler mentality). Seen in big companies. Also likely is the growth of latent resistance in some of the dominated participant (rebel mentality), potentially leading to active resistance (See Destruction below). All of these contribute towards instability.
"I want the juggling balls now."
"Yeah? Well, I just started using them, can you let me have them for -"
"Look, I'm gonna help you with the test, so give them to me now! Like now now."
"Hmph. OK, I guess, take them..."
"Yay, juggling balls!"
Destruction
Synonyms: Fighting, War, Vendetta, Protest
In this approach, participants are assertive and uncooperative in the struggle to dominate the other. The object of destruction could be the other participant or issue creating dissent. Seen in war. Advantages include the potential for quick resolution. Disadvantages include direct of collateral casualties, that more severe differences will probably take place of the first one due to the escalation of violence and the backdrop of domination remaining with the group (if destruction attempt successful).
"I want the juggling balls now."
"No. Screw the test, I just started using them and I'm not going to just give em up like last time."
"Give them to me!"
"No!"
"You smell!"
"No, you smell!"
...
Avoidance (A.k.a. Flight, Denial)
In this approach, participants are unassertive and uncooperative and leave the dissent as a block between them. It requires a change in the behavior of one or both participants to avoid the dissent, or perhaps the other participant entirely. Seen in all British families. Advantages include that it can require little energy. Disadvantages include that the dissent remains intact, that participants are prevented from fully understanding the other and that neither can act completely naturally whilst the avoidance behavior is indefinitely maintained.
"Hey new neighbor! Welcome. We have a political discussion group here every Monday night, wanna come?"
"Yeah, thanks. I really like that orange dude with the weird hair. I'm gonna vote for him to become emperor"
(tumbleweed)
"Uhhh... so the weather's nice!"
"Yeah! Really, great, I'm gonna... cut the grass! Bye"
"Bye"
1. Ruble, T.L. and Thomas, K.W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior [Perhaps accessible here] ↩
2. Schwarz, G. (2005). Konfliktmanagement - Konflikte erkennen, analysieren, lösen [lang:de], Gerhard Schwarz [Perhaps accessible here] ↩
| thing one | thing two |
|---|---|
| |
somthing else |
| |
somthing else |
| |
somthing else |