Ricardo F. Morín

January 5, 2026

Oakland Park, Fl.

Wannabe Axiom VI

Consensus is often introduced as agreement freely reached.  It appears as the resolution of conflict and the suspension of dispute.  It signals stability where division was visible and closure where uncertainty remained.  In this sense, consensus presents itself as a collective achievement.  

Over time, however, consensus ceases to describe an outcome and begins to function as a presumption.  Agreement is no longer demonstrated but asserted.  Unity is declared before dissent has been addressed.  The appearance of accord replaces the work of deliberation.  

Once consensus is presumed, disagreement changes status.  It is no longer part of the process but an interruption of it.  Objection is reframed as obstruction, and hesitation is treated as irresponsibility.  Participation becomes conditional on alignment.  

Consensus narrows the field of acceptable speech without issuing prohibitions.  Positions are not banned, but they are rendered procedurally untimely.  Questions are not silenced, but they are judged to have arrived too late.  The space for dissent contracts without visible force.  

This contraction carries a temporal logic.  Consensus is framed as something already achieved, even when its effects are still unfolding.  Time is invoked to justify closure.  What remains unresolved is deferred in the name of moving forward.  

The ethical weight of consensus is unevenly distributed.  Those empowered to declare agreement are least exposed to its consequences.  Those who bear the effects are asked to accept that the matter is settled.  Closure travels downward, while authorship does not travel upward.  

Consensus governs by atmosphere rather than argument.  It relies on tone, repetition, and the appearance of unanimity.  To dissent is not forbidden, but it is marked as unnecessary.  Silence is mistaken for assent.  

What consensus is, then, is a condition in which disagreement is treated as already resolved.  It names closure rather than understanding.  It stabilizes outcomes by limiting further inquiry.  

What consensus is not is unanimity freely reached.  It is not evidence that competing claims have been reconciled.  It is not proof that dissent has lost relevance.