Can We Try Civil Disagreement?
What I currently believe and why
From high school science class, I learned that a parasite is an organism, my brain says a bug, which needs to actually live on another organism, a host, to keep it alive. It feeds off the host which provides nutrition to fuel its life. The problem is that in the course of the parasite meeting its own needs, the host pays a price. This could take the form of weakness or death. Based on the title of this book, my thought is that the author is correlating certain hot topic ideas that then feed on social media, news outlets, or universities that have imbedded themselves into the life of a society and caused disruption, (weakness?) or death of common sense.
When I read the title of this book, my mind went to The Anxious Generation where social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt discussed the result of a generation of young people growing up with more safety precautions than ever before. The anxiety went beyond physical harm to emotional hurts. Because these emerging adults had not navigated small difficulties on the playground or at school, they did not have the coping skills needed to transfer to adulthood. Rather than sticks and stone would break a bone, but names would never hurt, children have become fragile adolescents who feel personally harmed when words spoken conflict with personally held tenets[1]. Dr. Saad’s book took a different journey yet he may be responding to it.
How my beliefs have been affirms and challenged by the reading
The first purpose of The Parasitic Mind was to define what Dr. Gad Saad perceives to be some of the damaging progressive pathogens that are being expressed in mainstream settings such as universities, media, businesses, politics, and more. The second purpose was to offer ways to become protected from the effects that he believes could be dire[2]. Finally, he offered a call to action to combat them and the importance of free speech. As soon as I read about his view of the importance of free speech, I sensed I was more willing to read what else he had to say.
Yet beyond free speech, I was challenged as I realized I would have to get beyond what I perceived as a rigid approach to truth. Dr. Saad stated that the lack of intellectual diversity is like the spider who is drugged by the sting of a spider wasp then brought to the nest where the baby wasps eat it[3]. He is outspoken and seemed to have little tolerance for ideas that posed what he thought were wrong definitions of truth. Additionally, he described those ideas as idea pathogens then correlated them to horrific illnesses such as Ebola, bubonic plague, and more; calling them parasites of the human mind was disturbing[4].
Where I drop away from Dr. Saad is the way he interacts with issues like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as a parasitic ideology similar to a cult[5]. This raises questions for me. Are all new ways of looking at things inherently bad if you disagree with them? Is sparring online or demonstrating the best ways to effect change for either side? Is it possible that both sides of a topic might have areas that could be framed and articulated differently?
Rather than simply write off something because a person doesn’t like how it started or the method used to promote it, I think there is another option than simply condemning it as all bad. Perhaps intellectual conversations where courageous individuals can discuss historical background, pros, cons, values, limitations, and connections to scientific fields would be helpful. And more importantly, is there any common ground where two presently extreme opposites could acknowledge their differences but agree to live in that, recognizing that one group has a right to assess them differently than another? More than civil discourse, maybe call it a process of civil disagreement.
Even as I say write this, I am aware that this might be one of those wicked problems that have so many layers that one answer will not solve the problem in total[6]. But as authors and emeritus professors, Joseph Bentley and Michael Toth wrote in Exploring Wicked Problems, working with problems that we care about offer benefits that may include:
- Enriching our emotional lives
- Stimulating thinking
- Sharpening perceptions
- Expanding learning
My hope is that by tackling small pieces together, and experiencing the ancillary benefits, people on divergent sides will realize that people who have opposing views do not have to be enemies. Furthermore, history has shown that sometimes rallies and political actions do yield good results. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Women’s suffrage initially come to mind as examples of good results from difficult social action.
As I reflect on this post, I think I am trying to give an alternative view of what is possible. I do see value in much of what Dr. Gad Saad shared. I am not afraid of peaceful movements and efforts to treat people with respect while disagreeing with them. It might be wishful thinking but ultimately, I think the work of Coleman Hughes says it better when he pushes for a colorblind society in hiring; one that doesn’t ignore the biological or other differences but also does not use prejudice against someone because of them. People are judged on character and performance[7]. Dr. Saad has strong opinions on many topics. While I may have opinions based on my experiences and faith, I do not take issue with him on his positions, only his methods.
[1] Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation (New York, Penguin Press, 2024), p.
[2] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind. How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (New York, NY, Regnery, 2020), xi.
[3] Saad, 17-18.
[4] Saad, 17.
[5] Saad, 90.
[6] Joseph Bentley and Michael Toth, Exploring Wicked Problems: What They Are and Why They Are Important, (Bloomington, IN, Archway Publishing, 2020), p. 49.
[7] Coleman Hughes, The End of race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America, (New York, NY., Penguin Random House, 2024), 25.
About the Author
Diane Tuttle
6 responses to “Can We Try Civil Disagreement?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Diane, your reflections on Dr. Saad’s strong stance and your openness to both his insights and your discomfort with some of his methods were great. How do you personally navigate the tension between speaking out for truth as you see it and staying open to dialogue with those whose methods or conclusions deeply differ from your own?
Hi Glyn, Thanks for the question. I like having discussions in small settings where people can really listen to each other and process thoughts in community. One factor that is important is to take a stance of being a life long learner. Rather than sticking to an I am RIGHT. At work when someone wants to do something that I might disgree would be helpful. I usually say – convince me and I will go with it. It gives them an opportunity to step away from emotionalism and look at evidence, pro/cons, etc.
Diane,
Thanks for the post. I had four students this semester complete 35 hours at a agency that works with adults with Developmental Disabilities. Each student gave a report to the class about their experience. Each one came away with a different perspective on life.
I think society has a parasitic idea on the definition of a full life. Life being where you are fully mobile and fully cognitive. Of course, this idea has existed for millenniums. How do you advocate in your community for a broader definition of what it means to live a full life, a life that is beyond having a 120 IQ and fully functional limbs? What type of pushback do you get when you argue for DEI as it relates to the DD population?
Hi Jeff, Sometimes when I speak to groups I talk about the delight in experiences that folks have. But mostly I talk about their desires to have friends, go to the park, play basketball, get a job are similar to other people. I talk about their ability to forgive when someone was unkind to them, or to want some of the same things I want. These are generalizations but still examples that say, the things you want in life are no different that what others want too. I think how we model our interactions with people also speaks volumes. I tell our new staff to ALWAYs assume someone understands what you are saying even if they don’t use words for expressive language. They don’t need to be treated like a child when they are adults. Thanks for asking the question but really, thanks for giving your students the experiential learning opportunity.
Hi Diane,
I appreciate the openness of your post.
How can past social movements, like those of Martin Luther King Jr. and the suffragists, guide us in solving complex problems today? Have experienced “peaceful movements and efforts to treat people with respect while disagreeing with them” in the past ten years.
Hi Shela, I think the message that could work would be to state your case without demonizing the opposition which further alienates and divides. I think you were asking if I have had experiences of peaceful movements in your question – I have not been to rallies and large settings but have been fortunate to have really substantive conversations around dinner tables that have both challenged and confirmed ideas. They have been a gift. Thanks for the question Shela.