Dissent VS Disagreement: The Foundations of Democracy
By:Nicole S Bruss
In our lives, we are told to be different, to stand up for what we believe in. Yet, when we do so, we are chastised. This is dissent, being the odd one out. However, there are times when one may disagree with an idea and you find yourself among others who feel the same way. Boorstin states that these two things, disagreement and dissent, are very different things, with the latter being a “cancer” and the former being “the lifeblood of democracy.” This statement holds little ground. Boorstin’s distinction between dissension and disagreement is false, for it can be seen that these two ideas are both equally important in a democracy and in the world.
The ideas of dissent and disagreement are seen working positively hand in hand throughout history. This is true in America, the land of democracy. America was the first nation to proclaim themselves a democratic society and to put power in its people. How did America get to this point? Not through tea time with their oppressors, America’s founding fathers disagreed, so they took action. However, one must first look back to how they reached the point of action. It all started with dissent from Thomas Paine. It is widely known that Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was the foundation for a revolution, but Paine did not publish “Common Sense” because he saw a mass majority of people screaming for freedom. Pain was among the few who were discontent. So he used his dissent fueled mind and put a revolution on paper. After which, many others began to murmur of freedom, began to disagree with their oppressors. Americans used different approaches to achieve independence, such as the Boston Tea Party. When these actions proved to be unsuccessful, the Americans were brought to a dissent fueled war, the American Revolution. Without the dissent of Thomas Paine, the people of America would have had no motivation to disagree with the British and wouldn’t have eventually earned independence. Boorstin insists that dissent is a “cancer” for a democracy, when in reality, his treasured idea of disagreement had to coincide with dissent before democracy could be born.
Dissent and disagreement can also be seen working in other instances, such as a the civil rights movement. The African-Americans of the time had no voice, no rights, because of different laws, such as Jim Crow. While these people were American, since they were the minority, the white men did not have to listen to them, for they had no place at the table. They were the minority, therefore their voice could not make a difference, because America is a democracy. African-Americans used various, peaceful ways of protesting: sit-ins, marches, or walking instead of riding the bus to name a few. These ideas were challenged by Malcolm X, who gave speeches of violence instead of peace. That violence drew attention to the movement, for now the whites were threatened and had a reason to listen; for their own well being. This violence is the epitome of dissent, the threat of harm forced the whites to give the minority a spot at the table. So, while dissent may be used negatively, it can be seen it works hand in hand with disagreement, or the majority.
Boorstin’s idea also does not reflect on modern democracy as well. Our democracy is just that, a democracy, so when people disagree, their voices are heard. Those who disagree can silence the voice of dissenters, but dissenters can rise to the challenge, demand a voice at the table. The women’s marches and rights movements are everywhere in America, whether it be in history or in the present. The women who fought and fight for their rights are dissenters. They are the minority opinion, therefore the majority has no reason to listen to them. Especially in history, women were voiceless under the law, so they had to find ways to disagree productively; marches, protests, and strikes are all included in this list. The women, for the most part, did not become violent, even when the majority tried to knock them down. Instead the women rose to it and used those who disagreed disdain to empower themselves and continue the fight for their rights. These ideas continue to hold true today, women must still use the disdain of those who disagree to empower themselves, making it true that disagreement and dissent have coincided and continue to coincide with one another to make progress in a modern democracy.
Overall, throughout time and even today, the ideas of dissent and disagreement work hand in hand. Without one, the other is weak or may even cease to exist. In both politics and the world, dissent and disagreement share equally important roles that shape society and history. While Boorstin would shudder away from this idea, this proof is clear; the ideas of disagreement and dissent can strengthen the other, empower those who need it, or, in some cases, start a revolution. So follow what you were told and stand out. Disagree, dispute, and exercise dissent. Stand up for what you believe in, just like those before you and around you, because it can change the world.
