Is consensus a good thing?
In his book Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus, the philosopher Nicholas Rescher defined consensus as a “condition of intellectual uniformity, a homogeneity of thought and opinion.” He argued that:
the impetus to consensus unquestionably resonates to the human predicament: it reflects our penchant for conformity and our deep-rooted inclination to accept what others do, so as to achieve the comforts of solidarity and companionship… Finding ourselves in a condition of agreement with others is unquestionably a source of comfort.
The drive to consensus is not necessarily a good thing. Intellectual uniformity is frequently an impediment to creativity and innovation, and a sign of intellectual mediocrity. Rescher noted that the “realization of consensus involves a compromise among potentially divergent tendencies and thus tends to occupy ‘the middle ground’ where people are most easily brought together, but where, for that very reason, the element of creative, insightful innovation is likely to be missing.” Irving L. Janis made a similar point in his classic book about decision making in groups, Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. He wrote that “when a group of people who respect each other’s opinions arrive at a unanimous view, each member is likely to feel that the belief must be true. This reliance on consensual validation tends to replace individual critical thinking and reality-testing.”
Consensus Origins
