The Shifting Sands of Civility: Are We Losing the Ability to Disagree? By Dusty Wentworth

There was a time—not so long ago—when two people could sit across a table, engage in a spirited debate, shake hands, and part ways without questioning the other’s character. Political opponents could cross the aisle for a drink, families could hold divergent views without the Sunday roast descending into a shouting match, and disagreement, though often heated, was still seen as a natural and necessary part of civic life.

Today, that picture feels increasingly like an artefact of a bygone era. In the public square—whether that square is physical or digital—the ability to disagree without declaring an enemy appears to be eroding. The line between challenging someone’s opinion and attacking their character has blurred to the point of near-invisibility.

The consequences of this shift are not merely social niceties lost; they are structural fractures in the way our society processes difference. If we cannot disagree without malice, we cannot debate meaningfully. And if we cannot debate meaningfully, we cannot solve problems that require collective reasoning.

A New Landscape for Public Discourse

Much of the transformation in how we handle disagreement has been driven by technology. Social media, with its combination of brevity, performative engagement, and algorithmic amplification, has reshaped conversation into something closer to public theatre than private exchange.

Once, an exchange of letters or a face-to-face conversation allowed nuance to thrive. The spoken word gave space for tone, body language, and clarification. In contrast, today’s public discourse is dominated by rapid-fire posts and comments where context can be stripped away, meaning can be misconstrued, and outrage—whether genuine or feigned—travels faster than correction.

On platforms designed to reward engagement, strong emotions are the currency. Outrage, indignation, and moral certainty are rewarded far more than measured consideration. In this environment, the temptation to present disagreement as a moral failing, rather than an intellectual divergence, is overwhelming.

From Opponent to Adversary

One of the most noticeable changes is the shift in how we categorise those who think differently from us. Not long ago, a political rival or ideological opponent might have been described as “wrong-headed” or “misguided”. Today, they are far more likely to be labelled “dangerous”, “toxic”, or worse—words that suggest not simply incorrect ideas, but malicious intent or even inherent moral corruption.

This rhetorical escalation matters. The moment we frame a person not merely as someone with a flawed argument, but as someone whose character is suspect, we step away from debate and towards a moral purge. Disagreement becomes not something to be worked through, but something to be stamped out.

The result is a culture in which engagement is often replaced with disengagement. People “block”, “mute”, or “cancel” rather than converse. In some cases, disengagement is sensible—abuse should not be tolerated—but in many others, the silence stems not from genuine harm, but from the perception that engaging with contrary views is a tacit endorsement of them.

The Historical Perspective

The irony is that robust disagreement has historically been one of the engines of progress. The British parliamentary tradition, with its often raucous but ultimately structured debates, is a testament to the belief that clashing perspectives can produce better governance. Philosophers of the Enlightenment argued fiercely with each other, often in print, yet those arguments sharpened ideas and advanced knowledge.

It is worth remembering that free societies have always been noisy. The difference now is that our noise feels less productive. We have moved from arguing towards something to arguing at someone.

The Emotional Turn in Debate

Another factor fuelling the current malaise is the elevation of emotion over reason in public discourse. Emotional argument is not inherently bad—indeed, empathy and moral passion are vital in human affairs—but when emotion becomes the primary metric by which we judge the validity of a statement, disagreement becomes personal by default.

The prevailing belief seems to be: If it offends me, it must be wrong. This inversion of logic—judging truth by personal comfort rather than evidence—creates a brittle form of discourse, one in which any challenge to a belief feels like a personal attack.

This emotional fragility is compounded by a cultural emphasis on personal identity. When beliefs are closely entwined with identity, disagreeing with someone’s opinion can be perceived as attacking who they are. The result? A debate about tax policy can swiftly be reframed as an attack on one’s worth as a human being.

A Case Study: Immigration and the Collapse of Nuance

Few topics in modern Britain illustrate the collapse of nuanced disagreement more clearly than immigration, particularly the issue of small boat crossings across the Channel. Public concern over the numbers arriving and the government’s response has created a charged political atmosphere.

Instead of open debate about the facts, trade-offs, and possible solutions, discussion is often reduced to labels. Those who call for stricter controls may be branded far right, implying extremist ideology rather than a legitimate policy position. Conversely, those who advocate more open policies may be dismissed as far left, accused of naïvety or disregard for national security.

This rhetorical shortcut serves a clear purpose: it discredits the person before their argument is even examined. Once someone has been categorised as holding an “extreme” position, the need to engage with their reasoning disappears. The discussion is no longer about the evidence or the policy, but about whether the person is morally acceptable to listen to in the first place.

The cost of this is significant. Immigration is a complex, multi-faceted issue touching on economics, security, humanitarian obligations, and national identity. When debate is flattened into a binary moral struggle, we lose the ability to examine the trade-offs honestly. Compromise becomes harder, policy becomes less effective, and public frustration deepens.

In this sense, the immigration debate is not just about who comes into the country—it is also a mirror reflecting how we talk to each other, and whether we can still disagree without immediately questioning each other’s integrity.

Why the Shift Matters

This erosion of civil disagreement matters for several reasons. First, it reduces our collective problem-solving capacity. Societies face complex challenges—climate change, technological ethics, economic inequality—that require rigorous debate. If people feel they cannot question prevailing narratives without risking social or professional ruin, the range of ideas under consideration narrows dangerously.

Second, it erodes trust. When disagreement is equated with hostility, individuals retreat into ideological silos where they interact only with those who already agree with them. This creates echo chambers that reinforce certainty and demonise outsiders, further polarising society.

Finally, it breeds cynicism. When every disagreement feels like a battlefield, people may simply disengage from public life altogether, leaving the field to those who thrive on conflict rather than resolution.

What We Lose When We Silence Each Other

The most dangerous consequence of this shift is the suppression of dissent. When people self-censor for fear of social reprisal, important perspectives go unheard. This does not merely impoverish public debate; it creates blind spots that can lead to policy errors and societal harm.

History offers cautionary tales. The McCarthy era in the United States, for example, showed how fear of being labelled “un-American” silenced dissent and damaged democratic institutions. In more recent times, authoritarian regimes have thrived by fostering climates in which disagreement is equated with disloyalty.

We must ask ourselves: are we voluntarily constructing similar conditions, not through state coercion, but through social intimidation?

Reclaiming the Lost Art of Disagreement

If we wish to reverse the trend, we must consciously re-learn the skills of civil disagreement. This is not simply a matter of politeness; it is an act of democratic preservation.

Some starting points:

1. Separate the person from the argument – Critique ideas, not identities.

2. Resist emotional shortcuts – Challenge yourself to examine evidence before reacting.

3. Listen to understand, not to win – Approach debate as a collaborative search for truth rather than a contest to be won.

4. Normalise intellectual discomfort – Disagreement can be uncomfortable; that discomfort is often a sign of growth.

5. Defend the rights of others to speak, even when you disagree – If you only support free speech for views you like, you do not support free speech at all.

A Personal Reflection

In my own experience—both in professional life and as an observer of social trends—the most fruitful conversations have often been with those whose views I found most challenging. There is something invigorating about engaging with someone whose logic forces you to interrogate your own assumptions. Yet, increasingly, such exchanges feel rare, replaced by guarded statements and careful silences.

Perhaps the most telling change is not in what we say, but in what we no longer dare to say.

Conclusion: A Call to Courage

Civility is not the absence of disagreement; it is the ability to disagree without dismantling the social fabric that holds us together. If the sands of civility are shifting beneath our feet, we must decide whether to let them erode entirely or to shore them up with deliberate effort.

This will require courage—courage to speak when silence is safer, courage to listen when listening is uncomfortable, and courage to remain in the room when walking away would be easier.

If we cannot rediscover this courage, we risk a future in which the marketplace of ideas becomes a battlefield of identities, and the goal of conversation is no longer understanding, but victory. And in such a future, nobody truly wins.

If this piece resonated with you, share it with others—whether they agree with you or not. Let’s keep the debate alive, broaden the conversation, and reclaim the ability to disagree without tearing each other apart.

#Dustywentworth