On Being a Contrarian
On Being a Contrarian
We all know what it’s like to be in disagreement with others--sometimes with many others at one time. Not all of us have had the unique pleasure of being labeled a “contrarian,” however. Contrarians tend to be on the opposing side of most arguments and find themselves seeing things differently from the way that people holding the prevailing opinion do. This is no crime, of course, but when one exhibits a string of discordant beliefs one might find him or herself on the wrong side of everyone else’s feelings. Though friends, family members and colleagues may not appreciate implacability, the contrarian’s unique contribution is all too often overlooked. Indeed, it is because of this very social phenomenon that the contrarian’s intellectual gift is dismissed or devalued.
Being characterized as contrary isn’t all bad. It’s not dissimilar to the way that wealthy people tend to be called “eccentric” when they break social norms rather than being stigmatized as “crazy.” When an intellectual behaves in a manner seen as oppositional or stubborn they earn the moniker “contrarian.” This is a compliment of sorts, provided one isn’t also more bluntly called obstinate or argumentative. Indeed, no less than the great Christopher Hitchens clutched this label with pride when he published his Letters to a Young Contrarian.
So what’s the problem with finding oneself in this unfortunate, albeit rarified category? To understand this, we must enter the mind of the contrary person. I maintain that to be a contrarian is a very different thing than being merely disagreeable or oppositional. Contrarians find themselves disagreeing with others, not always and not only because they feel compelled to disagree for its own sake. The contrarian sees the world differently than those around him or her do and, as a result, espouses a position that others find unpleasant, unacceptable and overly argumentative. Pure oppositionality would lead to offensive and intractable argumentation. Not so with the contrarian who comes to his or her opinion honestly in an attempt to arrive at some form of truth.
Now, the contrarian finds him or herself in a very difficult position. One cannot defend oneself against the accusation that one is a contrarian for fear of being further accused of oppositionality. Even more frustrating for our iconoclastic friend is the sad reality that the substance of his or her argument is not being attended to. One could contend that an ad hominem assault is being mounted on the personality of the contrarian rather than a line of legitimate argumentation on the thesis for which he or she advocates. Sadly, the potentially incisive thought process goes unnoticed and the surrounding social imbalance the contrarian creates is attended to instead. The unique and worthwhile worldview of the contrarian is sacrificed in the name of social cohesion.
How do we know when someone is a contrarian in the positive light that I’ve placed it here rather than an oppositional and disagreeable person looking for any excuse for a verbal fight? I think this can be easily determined by attending to the substance of the point raised by the person in question. Is the insight valuable in its own right? Does he or she maintain the point for the sake of finding the truth? Or does he or she change it to always be right and maintain that others are wrong, impervious to somewhat blaring inconsistencies? Finally, is a debate made of even the most trivial topics just to create conflict and confrontation at every opportunity? Or are only important issues chosen for exploration and analysis at socially appropriate moments? Answering these questions will quickly clarify the nature of the person with whom we find ourselves in a war of words.
What is it that leads someone to contrarianism considering the social pressures lined up against this position and despite the possibility of being stigmatized as oppositional? Genuine contrarianism requires a specific recipe for its development that involves both the individual and his or her environment. The reason someone finds him or herself in opposition may be because he or she does not share values with or, at least, some core aspect of the community’s belief system. The opinion espoused is deemed unacceptable in one intellectual group, but might be understood and embraced in another. It also requires some courage on the individual’s part to place the value of arriving at truth above and beyond the social benefits accrued by acquiescence. Perhaps, it is the maintenance of a sense of identity and adherence to internal ideals that drive the contrarian.
We need to value our contrarians and the distinctive worldview they offer us, especially as we increasingly reside exclusively within our intellectual bubbles. We may feel rubbed the wrong way or otherwise uncomfortable, but we often need to listen to the very message that most upends our own way of seeing the world. Finally, I’ll add that engaging in the psychoanalytic process can be one way of adhering to the ideals of the contrarian, taking no thought, feeling or social convention for granted and declaring no topic off limits to reflection and exploration.
