Response to Timbur

To dissent or not to dissent, is that the question?

Timbur’s article was an eye opener for me on a couple of levels. I strongly agree that dissent is needed in social interaction for numerous reasons, because it creates new ways of thinking and it opens up new ideas to be considered among groups. However, I also think that dissent is problematic because too much of it can hinder progress towards the creation of new knowledge and bring conversation among groups to a halt. While consensus does seem appealing at first among group interaction, I do agree with Timbur in that it can bring group interaction to a halt as well. Much like a catch-22, this is how I view consensus and dissent; both can be good at certain times but too much of either can shutdown conversation and create problems.

I think dissent can be a powerful tool in a writing classroom, because as Dr. Kemp explained it allowed some students to voice their opinions that differed from the group. This created new ideas for the other students that originally formed a consensus on the topic, which ultimately led them to write a great deal about a topic they didn’t have much to write about at first. If everyone had originally agreed, would they have conversed as much as they did when they dissented? I don’t think so. However, the key factor to dissent is that when faced with an opinion that one doesn’t agree with, that person must vocalize their dissenting opinion, which isn’t always the case. There have been numerous times when I have been part of a group that forms a consensus with which I don’t agree with, but that I ultimately agree with in the end for the sake of consensus. The reason why? Because dissent takes time and effort, and when the group is faced with a deadline or when it’s under stressful conditions it doesn’t always have the luxury to dissent.

It’s funny that this is how I’ve come to view dissent. I agree with Timbur in that we need to examine why we do the things we do, especially in a literature class as he discusses. It’s part of critical thinking, which in turn is a crucial aspect of writing well. But most groups in a writing class don’t necessarily have the option to dissent among its members, because ultimately things need to get done. While dissenting does create new ideas to write about as an individual within a group, it often hinders group writing as well. So while dissent is a good thing, I think consensus is a good thing as well. It all depends on context.