Who’s afraid of a bit of controversy. Not these Parisians.

RIGHTS/CULTURE

“Borders have led to mass deaths, sexual violence and human trafficking — we must abolish them,” says Catherine Wihtol De Wenden, casting a stern glance out at the packed audience. The French political scientist cites numerous examples and statistics to back her argument. Since 2014, more than 25,000 people have died attempting to cross from North Africa to Europe, she says; in Libya, a slave trade is profiting from refugees fleeing war and disaster; the Iron Curtain brought misery to millions; the EU’s own border agency, Frontex, regularly commits human rights abuses.

During her three-minute monologue, the crowd listens intently. Some nod in agreement. Some shake their heads dramatically. Others jot their thoughts down in a notepad. But nobody’s allowed to say a word until she finishes her allotted time.

Then Ano Kuhanathan, a Paris-based economist assigned as De Wenden’s debating partner takes to the stage. He’d come ready to disagree — but to do so cordially and purposefully.

“Why are there these flows of people?” Kuhanathan, himself a political refugee who fled from Sri Lanka to France, asks rhetorically. “What’s it for? To get a job. To get a house. To make a life.” He continues. “Instead of abolishing borders, it’s more important to give people equal opportunities when they arrive. If they are just allowed to work as Uber drivers, it makes no sense.”

De Wenden and Kuhanathan then engage in another round of heated debate about borders that span everything from colonisation to religion, labour rights, national identity, organised crime, taxation, globalisation, AI and more. The comments draw giggles, sighs, applause or indeed knowing glances between audience members.

The discussion was part of a project designed to cultivate the art of disagreement. Known as the Night of Controversies, the Paris-based event featured about a dozen different sessions throughout the evening, including debates such as “Do we need a green dictatorship?” and “Can we be happy in a world that is going to hell?” as well as workshops on the art of the argument and non-violent communication.

Run by the Institute of Desirable Futures, an organisation working on corporate innovation and leadership, the project aims to “enrich us from our disagreements” and to “joyfully cast doubt on our certainties” in an era of growing polarisation. The initiative is part of a wider movement that sees finding common ground and learning to “disagree well” as a potent remedy to many of today’s societal and political woes.

For more than a decade, the Institute of Desirable Futures has run “controversy” events designed to cultivate the art of disagreement.

The way of thinking proposed by the institute represents a riposte to the growing societal polarisation over issues from climate change to gender identity, immigration and abortion. A study by researchers at the University of Cambridge in February 2026 found that divisions on social and political issues in the US have increased by 64 percent since 1988, with most polarisation after 2008. Polling by Pew Research Centre similarly found a sharp rise in partisanship. In 2022, 72 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats viewed the opposing party as “more immoral” than other Americans, up from 47 percent and 35 percent in 2016.

“We are in a disagreement crisis,” says Julia Minson, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and behavioural scientist, pointing to the uncivil behaviour of political leaders and divisiveness of social media. “When it comes to the US, people on the other side of the political spectrum are seen as unmoral, untrustworthy, not worthy of debate.”

Yet Minson, who in March published How to Disagree Better, argues that disagreement is a crucial component of human life: from deciding with your child what to eat for breakfast, to choosing a phone plan with your partner or deciding where to have dinner with a friend. 

“Disagreement, it’s just inevitable,” she adds. “We need to think about how we can have these conversations more constructively. We have to get better at this.”

The institute runs “controversy” events predominantly as part of its work with small and large companies and even politicians. To date, more than 2,000 people have participated in the institute’s trainings on disagreement, spanning topics such as food production, climate change, AI, biomimetics and governance. Training sessions might be over a week or spread over several months.

“We reinvent the way people approach disagreement,” says Jean-Luc Verreaux, the institute’s director-general. “When it comes to the problem of division, we tend to leave it to experts to resolve. But it is a problem that individuals must confront.”

Inspired by philosopher Patrick Viveret’s model of Productive Disagreements and Bruno Latour’s Cartography of Controversies, Verreaux argues that as a society, we have three choices when confronted with different opinions. Firstly, we can withdraw from interaction and keep to our inner circle. Secondly, we can try to dominate and impose our beliefs on others. Or thirdly, we can learn to live and grow with them.

“Listening to opposing opinions can enrich us,” he elaborates. “A diversity of perspectives can only improve how we build the world of tomorrow.”

In recent years the institute has also expanded its remit, offering events open to the public that have been focused on single-issue debates. But the Night of Controversies was the first all-out, multi-session event dedicated to disagreement. 

More than 600 Parisians attended the evening, which was spread across four stages. And public participation was a key part of the process. Following the initial exchanges on borders between De Wenden and Kuhanathan, audience members were allowed to make comments or pose questions.

Prof. Minson praised the approach. “Everybody should be doing more of this,” she says. “But you really need to practice and put in the effort. You need to do this regularly. It is done most effectively in small doses all the time, not one-time workshops.”

At the end of the session on borders, there was time for a debrief. At the start, they had been asked to rate on a scale of one to ten to what extent they thought borders should be abolished. Now, after the debate, had that rating changed?

The answer? A resounding yes. Attendees were pushed both ways. One became more certain of her belief, shifting up from six to eight. Another shifted her rating down by a couple of points. And some made huge switches, going from five to one, after hearing the arguments.

ABOVE The Night of Controversies

PHOTOS Peter Yueng

Listening to opposing opinions can enrich us. A diversity of perspectives can only improve how we build the world of tomorrow.

Jean-Luc Verreaux

SOURCE