Mini-OPED:Should We Be Harkness Contrarianists?

By  FORREST ZENG ‘26

     A friend told me recently, “It’s funny to disagree.”

     Funny indeed—in many ways, it is funny to sit at the Harkness table and play devil’s advocate.

     But is there a limit to contrarianism?

     See, contrarianism is not merely a policy of disagreeing when disagreement feels appropriate—it is a policy of disagreeing with virtually everything. Contrarianism is a policy of listening and disagreeing, without any ideological consistency.

     Contrarianism isn’t only dissent, but dissent is the abused tool of a contrarianist.

     So to rephrase the question, is it ever fair to make a point of disagreeing, just for the sake of disagreeing? The answer is no.

     Neither ought uncontrolled contrarianism be how you conduct yourself at the Harkness table, within your friend groups, and in society as a whole. Because as powerful as disagreeing might make you feel, disagreement isn’t always conducive to truth or social cohesion.

     Sure, disagreement is how societies progress. The German philosopher Georg Hegel conceived of history as a series of constantly disagreeing ideas. He called this the “dialect.”

     But to Hegel, this historical “dialect” between contrary ideas had a goal in mind—achieving a “synthesis” of ideas, which would lead humanity a step closer to truth and a more unified society.

     In other words, we should disagree in order to reveal the truth and optimize the common interest.

     We shouldn’t disagree to abuse the truth and disrespect the common interest.

     Encouraging others to be strict contrarians is advocating for an ideological anarchy. Thinking contrarily ought only to be done when appropriate—when doubt probes important questions and reveals insights useful for society without ripping it apart at its seams. A culture of contrarianism is a culture of chaos.

     Contrarianism is essential for society—the greatest people in the world were also the greatest disagreers. But they disagreed not because “it’s funny.” They were critics, not quarrelers. They were investigators, not castigators of truth.

     That’s how we, as future critics of society, should disagree appropriately at the Harkness table.