Galileo was a brilliant physicist, precise mathematician, and thoughtful philosopher, but he had one glaring flaw: he wasn’t afraid to disagree. At the outset of the 17th Century, prevailing scientific opinion asserted that the Earth was at the center of the universe. In 1610, Galileo told them they were wrong. He proclaimed that the sun is the center of the universe and the Earth revolves around it. Cultural leaders responded by declaring him a heretic, denouncing him to the Roman Inquisition, and ultimately, rewarding him with lifelong house arrest.

Galileo paid a price, but Galileo was right. And history will remember his dissent forever.

Humans unfortunately have a tendency to accept the status quo. We’re like the arcade machine aliens from Toy Story, seemingly pre-programmed to respond in certain ways. After all, common advice says if you “keep your head down, do what you are told, and wait your turn,” you will likely advance over time. If you break with convention or buck the system, however, you can count on being ostracized and ousted. As Voltaire once said, “Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing the new road.”

But could it be that society needs dissent? What if thoughtful disagreement was actually a springboard to new ideas, fresh thinking, and better solutions?

As the cover story of the July-August 2010 issue of Ode magazine argues, society needs dissent to produce new artifacts and pioneer new solutions. When we disagree with commonly held beliefs or voice dissidence, we unlock the door to a whole new set of possibilities. “The reality is we need dissent,” Carson de Dreu, professor at University of Amsterdam, told Ode. “Without dissent, society would come to a halt; we wouldn’t change or create or innovate.”

This doesn’t mean that you have permission to be disagreeable or uncivil. It’s not an excuse to morph into the girl at the office who always opposes everything and impedes progress. The world doesn’t need any more contrarians or antagonists. Rather, it means that we must have the courage to speak up when, upon careful reflection, we believe prevailing thought is wrong. We must remember that the kind of dissent that makes a difference does more than point out a problem; it suggests a better solution. World-changing dissent casts an improved vision for the future.

Ode lists other great dissenters including author Henry David Thoreau, suffragette Lucy Burns, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, and “tank man” in Tienanmen Square. Modern society would no doubt look different today were it not for these paragons’ alternative visions. As Ode’s Jeremy Mercer writes, “Enormous benefits await when somebody is brave enough to disrupt this coveted social harmony and challenge prevailing conditions." Turns out, the “road less traveled” has been trod by more than just Robert Frost, and those travelers are the leaders who shape culture the most.

Strengthening Mercer’s assertion is a body of research around dissent that began in the 1970s when the University of Virginia began studying the dynamics of jury deliberations. They found that when the jury had dissenting voices who caused a fight, they engaged in better decision-making. One person with the courage to break from the norm resulted in more information heard at the trial being taken into consideration and a greater variety of perspectives being considered. Dissent, they concluded, leads to more-informed thinking and better problem solving.

If the research is correct and Mercer’s analysis is accurate, everyone should be jumping at the opportunity to break from the norm. But they aren’t. Most are content to simply follow the next person in line. Why is this?

Dissent is an uncommon character trait for two reasons. First, as Mercer points out, “civilization is built upon the ability of diverse groups of people to conform to common sets of rules and principles.” We’re all grateful when the majority decides not to rebel against stopping at red lights, for example. But another reason is our intense tendency to attack those who don’t conform. In the University of Virginia study, for example, researchers noted that the person who dissented was almost always ridiculed. When a Senator votes against the rest of his party, when an accountant questions her employer’s fiscal practices, or when a pastor decides to radically change the way his church has “always done things,” the majority commonly responds by marginalizing and shunning the dissenter.

This tendency fosters anxiety and inhibits dissent. As Dr. Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist at Emory University, says, “When people change their opinions or behaviors to conform, they are doing it out of a deep fear of being excommunicated from their group.”

[Listen to the QIdeas' interview with Gregory Berns: “Innovation and the Brain”]

Yet, even in a system bent toward conventionality, a few courageous leaders emerge over time. As you can see, they hail from all corners of society—authors, scientists, mathematicians, activists, musicians, and religious leaders. No matter what you do or where you live, opportunities abound to thoughtfully resist conventionality. We may have to resist our fear to speak up and weather some criticism once we do, but the legacy of Galileo gives us permission to speak freely.

_____

How do you respond to dissenters where you work, live, and worship? Have you ever opposed the status quo and been marginalized or ostracized? Have you ever opposed conventionality and reaped great reward?

_____

Editor's Note: The picture featured above is a statue of Galileo, which sits outside the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh.

Comments

Comments are now closed