Start the Argument You Want History to Decide
Created at: October 1, 2025
Dare to begin the argument you want history to settle. — Simone de Beauvoir
An Existential Call to Initiate
De Beauvoir’s line functions as an imperative of freedom: begin. In The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), she insists that freedom is realized in projects that exceed the present, while The Second Sex (1949) demonstrates how a single thesis—“One is not born, but becomes a woman”—can inaugurate a centuries-spanning debate. To “dare” is not to claim certainty; it is to shoulder responsibility for situating a question in public life, trusting that time, struggle, and collective reasoning will refine or vindicate it.
Precedents That Spoke Before Consensus
History repeatedly rewards those who start difficult arguments before they are popular. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) prefigured suffrage movements that matured into law across the 19th and 20th centuries. Frederick Douglass’s oration “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” (1852) forced the United States to confront the contradiction between liberty and bondage, a dispute ultimately reshaped by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865). Even in science, Galileo’s Dialogue (1632) provoked censure but seeded a consensus the Church formally revisited in 1992. Thus, beginnings that look like provocation often become landmarks once the dust settles.
From Controversy to Canon
Yet arguments do not settle themselves; they move through institutions and publics. Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) describes how discourse migrates from salons and newspapers to parliaments and courts. As ideas normalize—what policy analysts call the Overton window—they acquire procedural footholds: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) codified anti-segregation arguments; the IPCC’s assessments (since 1988) translated climate claims into the Paris Agreement (2015). Even so, settlement is often provisional; history writes in pencil before it inks.
Risk, Backlash, and Moral Patience
Beginning an argument invites reprisal, which is why “dare” matters. Galileo faced trial (1633); suffragists like the Silent Sentinels endured imprisonment (1917); Simone de Beauvoir herself, alongside Sartre, courted controversy by opposing colonial violence in the “Manifesto of the 121” (1960). Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963) models how to metabolize backlash into moral clarity. The throughline is patience: those who plant arguments rarely harvest their full legitimacy, yet their courage enlarges the space in which later generations decide.
Framing the First Move
To start well, define a claim that is testable by evidence and conscience, then dramatize it so the public can see its stakes. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) braided field data with vivid metaphor, transforming pesticide regulation from a technical concern into a moral argument about harm. Likewise, Gandhi’s Salt March (1930) served as a performative thesis on imperial injustice, rendering abstraction into embodied proof. In both cases, precise framing made controversy legible, and legibility invited adjudication.
Writing for Future Readers
If history will judge, leave it a record. The Federalist Papers (1787–88) show how argumentative essays can seed constitutional interpretation for centuries, while South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1996) demonstrates how testimonies formalize moral memory. Even Plato’s Apology (c. 399 BC) survives as an argument about conscience under law. Therefore, document your position—data, stories, and reasons—so that posterity can evaluate not only what you believed, but how you knew.
Turning Courage into Practice
Finally, move from reflection to declaration. Identify the injustice or possibility you want the future to confirm, craft a clear thesis in one sentence, choose a forum where dissent can be heard, and launch a concrete action—an article, a study, a strike, a prototype. By taking the first step, you transform desire into a public wager. In that act, you align with de Beauvoir’s insight: only begun arguments can be settled by time.