Since the origin of the words "consensus" and "dissensus" is one and the same, could agreement be the logical premise of disagreement?
Have the two parties been getting along until the conflict breaks out? Were they convinced that they used to agree?
This is the linguistic perspective. Let’s see how things work in practice. According to the notorious myth of “the social contract”, humankind used to live in a fearful world pictured as the combination of scarce resources and fierce competition, where the wealth and lives of community members are at great risk until a collective consensus somehow emerged.
To avoid the risk of loss, community members partially waived their freedom to do anything, and wrote down the ways of dividing resources in such a fair (!) way that required minimum compromise for maximum safety. They called these written records as “the law”. Laws derive from this approach: Modern life evolved from a group of individuals who did not need an agreement (in fear of competition and war) to societies that accept and agree with the social contract.
Let's have another round of the language game, then: If this myth is valid, there was a disagreement period before the agreement phase. Later, we agreed to agree, and then disagreements followed again. This scheme assumes that agreement is possible only if each party is content with what falls to their share.
Undoubtedly, all the written or verbal agreements we make in our business and private life also contain disagreements: If we make up agreements in which all parties are immediately informed about any potential change or conflict, would it be possible to minimize dissensus?
Comments