We want to talk about civil disagreement. We don’t always agree, and we need to know how to disagree well, in academic writing. (If we all agreed, there would be no need to write anything more.) Being disagreeable is a skill, perhaps an art, and it is better to have a creative disagreement than to have a feud.
What about starting and ending disagreements? To start a disagreement, we first need to understand, to be receptive to, to appreciate, the view that we will be disagreeing with. That gives us a licence to disagree. Like James Bond has a licence to kill: that sort of licence. And how do we end a disagreement (in a piece of academic writing)? We can either end it with a resolution. That is like the dialectics of the Ancient Greeks, or the 19th century Germans, where every thesis has an antithesis, ending in a synthesis. If that’s possible, that’s fine. But the more common way to end a disagreement is to leave room for it to continue, even if that is a little uncomfortable. That is an example of dialogue or conversation: deciding that we’ve tried to understand and appreciate the other point of view, and saying there’s more to be said. As there usually is, if we keep on thinking.
","author_name":"Julian Stern"}