The Price of Polarization: Debate as a Profession’s Dilemma

As public discourse becomes increasingly treacherous, one profession stands out for its unique relationship to debate and criticism: the law. Barristers have long prided themselves on engaging with opposing views and presenting arguments that challenge prevailing norms. This raises questions about what it means to be a “true friend” to the truth in an era where objective fact is under siege.

Oscar Wilde’s observation about friendship’s tendency to eschew flattery for brutal honesty has been misquoted as justification for tearing down opposing views, but its original context is more nuanced. In The Devoted Friend, Wilde highlighted the importance of candor in relationships – and by extension, in intellectual pursuits. However, when this kind of forthrightness becomes a liability, barristers trained to argue both sides of a case with equal vigor can find themselves pilloried for being on the wrong side of public opinion.

The Bar’s self-regulated status has historically allowed its members to speak freely about matters of public interest. But this freedom also makes them targets for criticism – and worse, attacks on their character or professional judgment. Jose-Antonio Maurellet notes that the “competition of ideas” is crucial in a polarized world, but it comes with its own set of risks.

The tension between advocacy and objectivity has long been a hallmark of the law profession. Barristers are trained to present both sides of an argument with equal force because they recognize that every case has multiple facets and competing narratives. This nuanced understanding is precisely what’s lacking in today’s public discourse, where opposing views are often reduced to simplistic binaries.

In prioritizing debate as a core value, barristers stand out for their willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints – even when it means contradicting their own clients or colleagues. This doesn’t make them immune to criticism; in fact, it often invites more scrutiny. By doing so, they’re holding up a mirror to our increasingly divisive society – and reflecting back all the messy complexities that we’d rather avoid.

The price of polarization is that we’ve lost sight of what it means to engage in genuine debate. We no longer contently present our arguments and allow the evidence to speak for itself; instead, we seek to “win” the argument at any cost by dismissing opposing views as illegitimate or uninformed. This has dire consequences for public discourse: when we silence dissenting voices or dismiss them out of hand, we erode the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

Barristers’ emphasis on debate and criticism takes on a new significance in this context. By prioritizing candor and objectivity over partisanship and self-interest, they’re demonstrating what it means to truly serve the public interest. They may be “sticking their necks out” by engaging with opposing views, but in doing so, they’re also showing us how to engage in constructive debate – and arrive at a deeper understanding of the issues that divide us.

What’s at stake is our ability to engage in meaningful discussion. As we navigate this treacherous landscape, barristers stand as beacons of hope: proof that even in the face of overwhelming partisanship, there are still professionals willing to speak truth to power – even if it means getting stuck with the label “enemy of the people.”