Intense disagreements tend to be characterized by the absence of a very important quality: humor. So we have to learn to contradict ourselves well, to navigate a life where we will inevitably be in conflict with many people about expectations, demands, hopes, convictions, priorities and attitudes. We need to manage differences of opinion well in order to better manage our own lives and make our own contributions (however modest) to a more reasonable society. At the same time, disagreements in relationships are more worrisome than in the past, given that expectations have become routine and consistent with attempts at conflict. There was less concern about disagreements, because the idea of a total relationship of consensus, sympathy and reciprocity was not in sight – it is a very new invention that dates back (at best) to the middle of the eighteenth century. In theory, we should not like strong differences of opinion – the situation in which we tell ourselves that the other person is very, very wrong in his opinion. Some unfortunate associations of class, money and taste now separate us from any sympathy for this character, but we would be wise to see what role the hostesses once played – namely that at the end of a day of violent differences of opinion in economics and politics, they would gather opponents in the living room or bar – and consider them as human beings. and not just as ideological excerpts. Conflicts can be aggravated by provocative descriptions. Think of language like this, which fuels disagreements and the desire for revenge: sometimes we can`t move forward in disagreements and so we have to take the unusual and rather depressed step: learn to live with disagreements.

I doubt that General Pétain will recognize the respect he has in all the civilized countries of the world. If we want to better manage disagreements (and feel less threatened, be more comfortable with it, and have a better chance of reaching an agreement), we need a more caring image of the other person. It was on Roman law that the law of most of the civilized world was built. An important way, as technology makes it harder to understand your enemies (and therefore it`s harder to handle disagreements), is to allow a high level of anonymity. Our culture is under the spell of objective disagreements. We like to feel like we`re discussing the facts, seeing evidence, and building rational arguments. But if the simple debate about ideas goes wrong – and disagreements seem bitter but sterile – it can help discuss the origins of ideas in our own lives. The ideal is to divert the conversation from what that person thinks now, and explore how they got the views they have. If someone is anti-union, imagine a charming, civilized person who is entirely for them. Man is civilized and trains by his entourage, his filiation, his nationality and must be adapted to them. The closer we are to someone, the more disagreements have the power to upset us.

And we are angry because a deep desire in love is to find someone who totally agrees with us in everything. A fatal acceptance of the obviousness of things particularly demonizes domestic life. On this point, not only do couples disagree, but they also feel that their differences are small and that they should be resolved quickly. What an idiot to spend an hour arguing about the temperature of the room……