Johnnie posts this morning about a phenomenon I've been stuggling with all my career. For now, let's call it "either/or-ism."
Here's the problem. Tension is inherent in any living system. It is impossible for life to exist without the operation of the dynamic tensions that hold together every structure, from the sub-atomic to the galactic. The key is balance.
Human systems are no different. They, too, require balance. But the human mind is a curious instrument. Somehow, tensions trouble it. Tension must imply a lack of clarity, or commitment, or something, because we repeatedly speak about ourselves, others, the world, in binary terms: "I'm a free-trader"; "I believe in freedom"; "I'm an environmentalist"; "I'm committed to human rights." The only recourse left to others, of course, are the opposing positions: "I'm a protectionist"; "I believe in control"; "I'm for unrestricted growth"; "I'm committed to national security."
The fact is, these are cartoonish statements. But, challenge them and their proponents become galvanized: "Oh, I see, you're against free trade, right?" It's as if there are only two positions on a scale: 0 and 100. Question someone who's at the 100 position ("don't you worry about the potential erosion of personal liberty under the Patriot Act?") and you'll immediately be caricatured as being at the 0 point ("oh, I see, you're soft on terrorism"). No middle ground. No room for complexity. No "both/and."
As long as we marginalize one another's perspectives in these ways, we'll never find ways to come to terms with the deeper system challenges we face. And, coming to terms with those challenges almost never entails resolving underlying tensions (in favor of "freedom" over "control," for instance) but in maintaining the balance between them that permits the system to operate maximally, in its context, to achieve its purposes.
But that means moving out of binarium and into a level of complexity that makes many of us really uncomfortable.
Comments