Sunday 23 December 2012

Disagreeing, in Private

“…It seems that some who say they are anti-consumerist are simply CHEAP! They don’t want to spend money on others. Then they turn around and tell you that they are anti-materialistic, and make it sound like they are better people than you…”, a friend wrote in an email after reading my last blog entry. The day prior, another friend wrote me about the same entry, commenting that gifting isn’t necessarily a materialistic thing. She enjoys “seeing the anticipation and excitement” in her kids’ faces when they rip apart the wrapping paper to find their favourite toys.

These are exactly the types of diverse responses that I would like to elicit and get the dialogue going. Interestingly, some friends who seemed to agree with me “liked” my post or put their comments on my Facebook page, whereas those who disagreed or questioned my position did it in a more private manner.

As I pondered over this, another friend encouraged me to blog about this. As a bioethicist, I’m often called upon to address the most distressing ethical dilemmas at the bedside. Many ethics consults are prompted by disagreements about what to do in a particular situation, such as whether we should remove life support for a patient in minimally conscious state, or use anti-psychotic drugs on patients and long-term care residents who allegedly display aggressive behaviour.

My friends weren’t looking for anonymity – they emailed me from their personal accounts. So I am curious: why may people be reluctant to air even thoughtful disagreements in public, especially when anonymous posting is an option? Is it because we worry that public disagreements are often seen as conflicts?

If people agreed all the time, I would be out of a job. And my goal for starting a blog about ethical issues in our daily lives certainly isn't to get agreements – my purpose is to engage in reflection and dialogues with others. So as many of us anticipate the excited faces of our loved ones opening presents we chose for them, do you think there is a difference between anti-consumerism and being cheap? And would you be willing to agree or disagree with me, in public? :)

Image Sources:

Agree to Disagree

Dialogue

10 comments:

  1. I think human beings have evolved to be exceedingly concerned about the approval and friendship of the others. Disagreement is not often received favorably, and many of us has leant at some point that openly disagreeing with someone jeopardizes the relation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Debbie -- and I guess there are situations where even respectful diagreements can be (mis)construed as poor etiquette, particularly in certain cultures (although I also don't want to generalize here). We often teach children to behave properly, which often means that we don't talk back, make others "lose face" (whatever that means), or appear arrogant.

      When I was a kid (oh heck, even now), my mom would often tell me that the best thing I could do when we went to gatherings was to just sit there and be quiet. :)

      Delete
  2. Great post!
    I am almost always posting about something controversial on my FB. Most of my family has blocked me from their feed so they don't have to see it anymore. My aunt once chimed in about her thoughts on abortion. First, she commented on my page, then deleted it and wrote privately.
    I have a few friends that are "tough enough" to debate with me publicly, but most don't say anything at all, not even privately. I wish they would, at least privately, so I know what they're thinking, or if they even think about some of the issues that are important to me.

    My guess is some people are more timid, perhaps even conditioned not to argue in public. At least they're offering feedback. That's far more helpful than silence. :)
    - Sandra Collisson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Sandra -- there are different ways that people can offer feedback. Sometimes I think silence is a form of response in itself :) As some people might say, if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything. I was certainly raised that way -- I would think that perhaps applied to my high school education as well. We learned by listening to the teachers and reading -- that's about it. I went to a great high school -- at least from the perspective of being an academically rigorous school. But I'm not sure if I would say it's a place that truly encouraged critical thinking. They were more concerned about the skirt length, hair length, and whether we were slipping in gossip magazines into our bookbags. Oh those were the days! :)

      Perhaps not everyone was educated in such settings -- but we are often told not to get too controversial. Those are people who are often considered to be "difficult" or "hellraising". So I appreciate that you aren't afraid to share your thoughts!

      Delete
  3. I had been a blogger for quite a while several years ago and there were so many arguments 隔空駡戰between ppl of different opinions. At times it was irrational and got very personal....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow -- I'm curious, was your blog on a certain topic? Indeed, sometimes things can get quite personal, but wouldn't that depend on what people think the point of making comments was about? If it's about getting discussions going (rather than just defending oneself), then it seems unnecessary or even self-defeating to get irrational.

      Having said that, I suppose when we make our views public, we are opening ourselves to criticism, constructive or not. So we probably would need to be either humble or tough-skinned enough to take whatever comes our way. I guess being in the academia has helped me with it -- being constantly under scrutiny, we're rejected so many times that it's almost a daily exercise :)

      Delete
  4. Somewhere in the question regarding anti-consumerism and being cheap I want to interject the distinction between want and need. Consumerism has led us down the path of confusing the two. Intentional simplicity (not believing that we need all the things advertising tells us we do) is very counter-cultural (in the majority of U.s. cultures)and I do not believe has to do with being cheap as much as it has to do with discipline. One can be generous and not materialistic. I don't think we are doing children a favor by buying them everything their hearts desire -even if it gives us joy to watch them tear open their gifts. What are we teaching them and socializing them to be?

    Regarding agreement and disagreement. To me it has to do with integrity and being respected versus liked. I would rather be true to my values, stand up for what I believe, and not worry as much about other peoples' approval. One also has to choose battles wisely. I do think there are times when it's not worth it to engage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting points and good distinction, Donna. Along your line of thinking, we also need to be careful about how some of what our "hearts desire" are constructed by businesses. If we don't desire their products, they won't be able to make a profit -- simple as that. We think that we are living in a "free" society or that we are individual thinkers (at least in the US or Canada), but it seems that we are often moulded into wanting certain things. (I'm thinking back to my undergraduate days in marketing and consumer behaviour...)

      Thanks for your comments, but more importantly, thanks for being true to yourself :)

      Delete
  5. And why on earth are you using Stasibook? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

    "If people agreed all the time, I would be out of a job". Is it ethical to cling to (or to spark) discussion/ambiguity that perpetuates your employment? An ethicist ought to seek ethical truths and promote them much in the way a physician ought to seek cures. Let's solve the world's problems and move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't think I'm trying to solve the world's problems here, Anonymous? :)

      I don't create disagreement to perpetuate my employment. The disagreement is already there. Worse yet, sometimes people don't even know if they disagree because they haven't thought about the issues, so they don't have any opinions. My job is to help clarify these issues and foster informed discussions that hopefully will translate into responsible actions. Sparking discussion is a way to get all of us informed about what's going on, reflect on why we think in a certain way (or buy into certain ideologies), correct any mistakes, and act accordingly.

      I attended an interesting talk yesterday about the role of ethicists -- in particular, bioethicists. Whether we are simply academics who study these issues, or whether we should play more of an active role. Or even be part of a social movement to promote certain causes. There is also the question of whether one sees being an ethicist as merely a professional role or as an integral part of a personal identity. That will require another post :)

      Delete