"It has been the way of Rotary to focus thought upon matters in which members are in agreement, rather than upon matters in which they are in disagreement"
About this Quote
Consensus can be a virtue, but it is also a strategy. Paul Harris, a lawyer and the founder of Rotary, isn’t just praising civility here; he’s articulating a design principle for a civic machine built to run smoothly. “Focus thought” is doing quiet work: it suggests discipline, a curated attention. Rotary doesn’t merely prefer harmony, it trains members to look away from the fault lines that could fracture a club made up of businessmen, professionals, and community power-brokers who might otherwise clash over politics, religion, class interest, or ideology.
The intent is pragmatic, almost procedural. In an era when voluntary associations were a primary engine of local governance and philanthropy, Rotary needed a glue stronger than any individual opinion. Agreement becomes the entry ticket to action: shared projects, shared reputations, shared networking. Disagreement, by contrast, is framed as wasted mental energy, a threat to momentum. That’s not naïve; it’s institutional self-preservation.
The subtext is more complicated. Choosing consensus is also choosing which conflicts count as “matters” worthy of discussion. It can produce an appealing ethic of cooperation, especially in communities starved for competent public service. It can also sanitize the very debates that determine whose needs get met. Harris’s line is reassuring because it promises unity; it’s consequential because it defines unity as the absence of friction, not the presence of justice.
Read in context, it’s a charter for a certain kind of American civic life: optimistic, efficient, and carefully noncombative, with all the strengths and blind spots that come with that bargain.
The intent is pragmatic, almost procedural. In an era when voluntary associations were a primary engine of local governance and philanthropy, Rotary needed a glue stronger than any individual opinion. Agreement becomes the entry ticket to action: shared projects, shared reputations, shared networking. Disagreement, by contrast, is framed as wasted mental energy, a threat to momentum. That’s not naïve; it’s institutional self-preservation.
The subtext is more complicated. Choosing consensus is also choosing which conflicts count as “matters” worthy of discussion. It can produce an appealing ethic of cooperation, especially in communities starved for competent public service. It can also sanitize the very debates that determine whose needs get met. Harris’s line is reassuring because it promises unity; it’s consequential because it defines unity as the absence of friction, not the presence of justice.
Read in context, it’s a charter for a certain kind of American civic life: optimistic, efficient, and carefully noncombative, with all the strengths and blind spots that come with that bargain.
Quote Details
| Topic | Team Building |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Paul
Add to List
