Daniel J. Boorstin believes that dissent and disagreement are far different from each other. He classifies those who dissent as part of the minority and those who have a disagreement part of the majority. I believe that dissent is just a degree of disagreement, and therefore the classification of minority and majority is all dependent on who, what, when and where we are talking about.
It has been seen throughout history where radical reform movements start off with the support of only a minority of people, but then grow to gain the support of the majority. For example, the women’s suffrage movement had never been popular until after World War I when the 19th amendment was put into place. The movement started off with only a few women
…show more content…
They did not go from dissent to disagreement when their cause became popular, their argument never changed. Boorstin states, “A person who dissents is by definition in a minority,” and in the case of women’s suffrage, that was true for many years. The movement gained wide support over the years, though, and finally belonged in the majority.
Although dissent is a radical wish for change, and history shows that that dissension will begin its life in the minority, there is nothing that says it cannot rise up into the majority without changing its purpose or severity of change. Yes, some reform movements never get to feel the support of the majority, but does that make them more radical or a more severe disagreement?
Dissent and disagreement are synonyms for each other. Dissent does not belong in one crowd of people while disagreement resides in another. They belong together, and they can change social, political, and economic problems together. Boorstin may have seen a big difference in the two regarding minorities and majorities, but I believe that disagreements and dissents start out as small ideas and grow into something bigger without ever changing their purpose. This is seen in history all around the world, and it is still happening
In the middle of the nineteenth century bloody battles broke out all over the United States, pitting brother against brother and father against son. The causes of this war were the issues of slavery and state’s rights; but most importantly, the catalyst for the Civil War was the tension in the air cause by the dissention of the South from the North. Dissention is a radically different concept than the idea of disagreement. Had the Northern and Southern states merely disagreed about slavery and states’ rights issues, the Civil War would only be a wisp of what could have been. Disagreement leads to arguments while dissent leads to quarrels, and the distinction Boorstin makes between the two is entirely accurate.
Plato, James Madison, and John Mills are all supporters of the idea that opinion must be discussed in public debate. In my own reason-based thought this idea that through silence ignorance grows louder is my own general understanding.
...ection against the government. Others believe that courts must be more active and open to expand the ideas of liberty even if it is required to strike down the majoritarian law in order to protect the minority group from government interference.
...he public is the dichotomy, which means that decisions are made without the political environment. As always, the disagreement for certain decisions made in the government will be present, but believe that the officials are working in a unison team to try to provide the best for all.
...wo decades was that in the 1920’s women’s rights advocates were able to pass the 19th amendment, granting women suffrage, and increasing political interest among women. Both time periods were difficult ones for minorities and women, though some victories were had.
A women suffrage amendment was brought to the U.S. Congress in 1868 but failed to win support as well as a second amendment in 1878. In 1869 a woman named Elizabeth Cady Stanton got together with Susan B. Anthony, a women’s rights activist, and organized an association called the National Woman Suffrage Association. With this union they would gather with women and fight for women’s suffrage. Later, in 1890 they joined with their competitor the American Women Suffrage Association and became the National American Women Suffrage Association. “NAWSA adopted a moderate approach to female suffrage, eschewing some of the more radical feminism of other women’s rights groups in favor of a national plan designed to gain widespread support” (3). What the association did was they changed their initial tactic towards suffrage for women so that they can be able to obtain support from all over. Having little to no movement on the national front, suffragists took the next step to sate level. That was when Eastern states granted women suffrage, but hadn’t spread to Western states.
Although they were fighting for a worthy cause, many did not agree with these women’s radical views. These conservative thinkers caused a great road-block on the way to enfranchisement. Most of them were men, who were set in their thoughts about women’s roles, who couldn’t understand why a woman would deserve to vote, let alone want to vote. But there were also many women who were not concerned with their fundamental right to vote. Because some women were indifferent in regards to suffrage, they set back those who were working towards the greater good of the nation. However, the suffragettes were able to overcome these obstacles by altering their tactics, while still maintaining their objective.
But how did this all start to happen? It didn’t happen overnight, and it wasn’t a one-person battle. Women wanted the same rights as men already had. But they didn’t just stop there, women played a major role in the rise of the child labor laws, stood up for minorities, and they wanted prostitution to end. Most people who opposed woman suffrage believed that women were less intelligent and less able to make political decisions than men were. Opponents argued th...
On the same site, it gives an explanation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes interpretation in Abrams v. United States, “that mere disagreement with speech is never enough to condemn it.” Holmes says:
An opinion repressed by an authority, peradventure, contains some verity. Those who covet to bridle it, of course, deny its truth, yet they are neither immaculate nor unerring. They have no ascendancy, to arbitrate the bone of contention for all of humankind, ostracizing every other person from the disputation. When a query to a surmised viewpoint is repudiated, due to opposition’s certitude of being correct, it is conjectured that the antagonists’ surety is tantamount to absolute certainty, and, imprudently, infallibility. Despite the fact that the slant, which some fancy to bowdlerize, is predominantly false, it may possess some portion of truth, a portion vetoed to us, if we suppress the speech that comprehends it. Any belief, however true it may be, if it is not scrupulously, habitually, and valiantly disputed, will be held as a dead dogma, a perished creed. A full and rich understanding of the creed’s justification is necessary. A prejudice, a notion independent of proof and against argument, is not the manner in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not being cognizant of verity. Truth, thus held, is nothing more than superstition, inadvertently clinging to the words of the credulous man that “enunciates truth”. Verity “will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.” Simply put, fervent, zealous debate over a precept’s veracity is obligatory, lest the nuances of doctrines are induced. Axioms will
Their initial victory was “followed by an ensuing struggle to implement change”. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male suffrage and the middle classes were determined to resist the demands of the lower classes....
The term majority is imprecise and simply means the major part of a population. The part may be anything between fifty and one hundred per cent, and the population may be any number. We need to consider the way a majority is formed before we can value the majority view as a genuine judgment.
Croucher, Perrett, Zeng and Gomez (2014) identified three important factors to this definition. The first factor is dissent is something that can be expressed to another individual. The other two aspects of dissent that helps us understand the meaning is how it needs to be included in the process of one engaging in a discussion focusing on disagreement and also opposing views against the practices, policies, and procedures or operations conducted throughout the organization. These factors of dissent produce feedback that is frequently linked to conflict but many times dissent is limited to the employee to just the feeling of separation from the organization but not actually revealing those feelings (Kassing, 1997). The notion attached to dissent can be expressed throughout many
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...
Since no one is infallible, it is up to society to dispute opinions in a reasonable and logical way rather than outright banning or accepting them. This is the best way to develop a true opinion for others to follow. One must also not withhold his/her opinion for fear of it being wrong or else he/she would never contribute to society or make basic decisions. A person must make his/her own judgements and rely on society to correct his/her mistakes with logic. This is why Mill supports unlimited free speech that causes no physical harm to another