Dissensĕre, which literally means to feel differently
November 4, 2025
By Sara López Vázquez
Dialogue has historically been one of the most solid and fundamental pillars of human coexistence. In both the political and religious spheres, societies that have been able to advance have done so on the basis of encounter. The Spanish democratic transition is a clear example of this; after decades of division and silence, dialogue became the tool capable of rebuilding the political community from a position of plurality. Similarly, the Second Vatican Council marked a decisive opening in the Catholic Church, recognising dialogue with the contemporary world as a path to renewal rather than a threat. In both cases, conversation between different parties was not a sign of weakness, but of civilisational maturity and progress.
Today, however, dialogue seems to have lost its legitimacy. The logic of polarisation has colonised public and private life, replacing rational exchange with identity-based confrontation. Conversation has degenerated into combat, not only in parliaments, but also on social media and at family dinner tables.
According to writer Juan Gabriel Vásquez, the segmented information we receive through social media has boosted our ability to see things from another person’s point of view. Contemporary polarisation is not only a cultural phenomenon, but also a political and economic one. As Professor Diego S. Garrocho warns, it is an electoral temptation and big business. For this reason, the media and technology powers have understood that conflict generates attention and that attention generates profits.
All this is happening in the post-truth era, in which the concept of truth is not only relativised but displaced by the logic of persuasion and emotionality. Objective facts have less influence on the formation of public opinion than emotions and personal convictions, and are replaced by narratives that seek adherence rather than consensus. Even the ways of verifying these facts and justifying arguments have become irrelevant in the face of the prevalence of what people feel to be their truth, turning it into a moral and identity issue[1]
This climate, where tension has replaced respect, erodes the very foundations of liberal democracy, whose lifeblood is precisely dialogue between diverse positions. It is a new scenario that breaks with one of the principles of democracy, which is negotiation. Agreement has become impossible; bubbles enclose us in an almost invulnerable unity of thought.
It is therefore imperative to relearn how to disagree. To do so, it is crucial to clarify the distinction between polarity and polarisation. Polarity is an anthropological condition: all human experience moves between complementary tensions – freedom and responsibility, reason and emotion, individual and community – which should not be eliminated, but rather kept in balance. Polarisation, on the other hand, is a distortion of that legitimate polarity; the profiling of the other as a threat or the discrediting of the other along with moral contempt, even incitement to hatred. Paradoxically, when natural polarities are denied or repressed, extreme polarisation finds fertile ground. As a result, societies that suppress difference become homogeneous, impoverished and, ultimately, unhealthy.
Disagreement is not a threat to coexistence, but rather its condition of possibility. A pluralistic society does not seek to eliminate conflicts, but rather to manage them within a framework of respect and a common foundation. As Pope Francis recalled in Fratelli Tutti, ‘persevering and courageous dialogue does not make differences disappear, but it can create new and fruitful syntheses.’
In the face of this drift, it is urgent to reclaim a pedagogy of dialogue. Dialogue does not mean diluting one’s convictions, but recognising the other as a valid interlocutor. It implies a willingness to listen, a rational openness – a shared logos – that seeks the truth even in the midst of disagreement.
In this context, exercising moderation becomes an act of resistance[1]. Not a lukewarm or equidistant moderation—which confuses prudence with cowardice—but a radical moderation that defends form, reason, and respect even when taking firm positions. Today, being moderate can be scandalous because it challenges the dogmatism of all sides.
[1] DIEGO S. GARROCHO – Moderaditos
[1] WAGNER, A. Deliberación, polarización y posverdad. Repensar la responsabilidad en la sociedad digital – Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas