Many collective problems end up trapped in the same sequence. First we argue about the causes. Then we argue about who understands them best. Finally, if there is time left, we talk about what we might do together.
Wildfires offer a good example. We can argue for hours about the relative weight of climate, weather, rural abandonment, vegetation, land management, prevention or response capacity. That discussion matters: understanding the causes well improves decisions.
But there is another question that does not always need to wait until we have fully resolved the first:
What can we agree on in order to reduce the risk and the harm?
People who explain the problem differently may still agree on some actions: improving prevention, protecting vulnerable populations, caring for certain woodlands, maintaining infrastructure, strengthening response capacity, or avoiding risky behaviour. Their reasons need not be identical.
The reasons can differ. The action can be shared.
Disagreement in ideas, cooperation in action
Too often we make acceptance of our explanation a precondition for collaborating on the solution.
A plural society rarely reaches complete consensus on what is happening, why it is happening, and what should be done. Nor does it always need to. Sometimes it is enough for enough people to find common ground for action while the intellectual disagreement continues.
This does not mean relativising the facts. Not all explanations are equally sound, and not all measures produce the same effect. Cooperating under disagreement is not about pretending anything goes, but about separating two questions we tend to mix: what we believe is true, and what we can do together now.
We can keep investigating, explaining and deliberating while we cooperate wherever enough common ground already exists.
From convincing in order to act, to acting when we already can
There is a very human temptation: we want to solve the problem, but we also want it to be clear that we were right.
The two things do not always advance at the same pace.
Perhaps, faced with some collective problems, we should ask ourselves a little less “how do I get others to think like me?” and a little more “what can we do together even if we keep thinking differently?”
A plural society does not need to think in unison. It does need to learn to cooperate without first demanding uniformity.