I disagree with the statement that, in any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. However, my disagreement is with the specific wording of this statement, rather than with the spirit that it expresses. In other words, by and large, I believe this statement is true—but I cannot endorse it completely, simply because the phrase “in any situation” is far too broad.
Generally speaking, discussion and the sharing of contrasting points of view is a good thing which promotes progress. How can we define progress? On a personal level, we can take progress to mean an awareness and knowledge base that is expanding and deepening as time goes on. On this level, exposure to contrasting points of view enables us to understand situations from the others’ perspectives, to “put ourselves in others’ shoes,” thus rendering individuals more empathetic and helping to preclude a myopic, narrow-minded worldview. Most members of a liberal, non-fundamentalist society would agree that this is a good thing. On a broader, organizational level, progress occurs when the organization’s leadership (whether embodied by a single individual, a small group of individuals, or all members of the organization) make well-informed decisions that benefit the organization, whether materially or in less tangible ways (e.g., intellectually or spiritually), and allow it to reach its goals. Here again, discussion among those with contrasting points of view is highly desirable. In the absence of various viewpoints, an organization—whether it be a club, a business, a nation, or any other group with a common end—sacrifices its potential for dynamism. If only one point of view is available, stagnation will be the inevitable result, making the organization vulnerable to external factors outside its control, or to internal dissatisfaction and ultimate dissolution. Thus, in the long term, intercourse and discourse between different points of view is highly desirable, even necessary, for progress on both the individual and organizational level.
Given the fact that I believe the above to be true, why then am I unwilling to express my full agreement with the statement? As previously mentioned, my disagreement springs from the simple fact that the current wording is far too broad, to the point where it renders an otherwise-reasonable statement untenable. While contrasting points of view are often, even usually required for progress, this is not true of all situations. One obvious example is a situation in which swift, decisive action is necessary, and an airing of all the alternative perspectives would hobble a group’s ability to take such action. When a futures trading company needs to respond rapidly to minute-by-minute changes in the market, when surgeons operate on a patient in critical condition, or when soldiers are pinned down by enemy fire, a leisurely discourse on the best course of action is a quick path to disaster. In these situations, a clear chain of command is essential. There is no time for discussion, and anyone with a “contrasting point of view” to air under such circumstances will quickly be dismissed, fired, or court-martialed. This is as it should be. When an emergency situation arises, normality is temporarily suspended, and courses of action that may usually be good or desirable become absolutely verboten until the emergency ends.
The key here is the phrase “until the emergency ends.” At that point, normal rules apply again, and contrasting viewpoints should be welcomed, even sought out. A firm, decisive leader or governing body is necessary in a crisis, but in more peaceful times they will listen carefully to a wide variety of counsel, representing as many points of view as possible, even to the point of reconsidering decisions previously made during the crisis. The combination of an unshakeable command structure, snappy decisions without recourse or reference to alternative points of view, and instantaneous obedience from underlings can be of huge benefit when time is of the essence. Over the long term, it leads to a blindly dictatorial attitude and, ultimately, decay. The examples from history are legion; in modern times, we need only compare the progressiveness and success of multi-party states compared to those, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in which alternate viewpoints are squashed and exterminated, to see the truth of this. Very occasionally, in extraordinary circumstances, our ability for dissent, discourse, and debate is better suspended—but in the long term, the path to progress is more easily discerned by a variety of viewpoints than by one alone.
Ephemeral GirlyGirl 