It was really interesting to learn about the differences between temporary and permanent inequality. Miller described temporary inequality as the lesser party being socially defined as unequal, where a difference in the level of authority causes a period of disparity that is merely short-lived. In permanent inequality, the “lesser” individual is already born being inferior, and the “superiors” never help them rise in society. In this type of inequality, “there is no assumption that the goal of the unequal relationship is to end the inequality” (Miller 225). While no type of inequality is ideal, I believe that temporary inequality is the best out of the two.
In the second article, the authors explained the importance of dissent. Although they did not outwardly mention groupthink, I believe that when a society or group of people lack dissent, groupthink is the immediate result. The authors described dissent as being “the rejection of the views that most people hold” (Chaney 184), which basically means going against the majority opinion. Dissent allows individuals to challenge existing policies without fear, which contrasts the role of a mind-guard. The second article ends by exploring different methods of embracing dissent and transcending fear. To me, the most important tactics are to talk about the process of conformity, dissent and the suppression of the dialogue and debate, as well as insisting on the rights of employees to express their views. Encouraging dissent is extremely important because it allows for an opportunity to re-evaluate current policies and therefore permits for such policies to reach their full potential.
I agree with both of your points from each article: the first being that temporary inequality is the lesser evil because at least there is an attempt to help regain that lost “power” between the two groups and the second being that our society when dealing with dissent often shows traces of groupthink. It is very obvious when looking at political parties because one leader does not want to seem weak or unsure so they tend to go with whatever that party as a whole usually stands for, even if they may have a less restrictive view on a situation.