Polarization- Two Horses

 


I hear the word "divided" often lately. It's routinely used to describe the state of our society, as if being divided isn't a good thing. But it is.

Being divided is the necessary state for things to change and improve. Division is the check and balance related to the status quo and whether it's working as effectively as it should. Gauging the state of resiliency of anything is hard without challenges. The degree of antifragility in a system is measured by testing the ability of the system to improve in the face of strain and adversity. Division exposes our mistakes and points us toward better forms of being. It provides the necessary stress that keeps us honest about what we need from, and want for our system. If a system is completely aligned and congruent, it's impossible to determine whether that alignment is targeting the desired outcomes. 

We need division.

What we don't need is polarization.

When people say we're "divided", I believe they are actually saying we're "polarized". Polarization is absolute. As described in this excellent article (originally written and published by Michelle MaieseTova Norlen and Heidi Burgess, and updated in September 2020 by Heidi Burgess), 
"Polarization is the process that causes neutral parties to take sides in a conflict. It also causes individuals on either side of the conflict to take increasingly extreme positions that are more and more opposed to each other."

Dichotomous viewpoints are hard to recover from. Polarization pulls people toward the extreme opposite ends of a black vs. white issue or argument to the extreme where I believe any ability to see a light through the cracks of their opposition is gone. Sensibility is out the window, and rational, intelligent review of ideas becomes impossible giving way to an emotionally charged perspective that severely diminishes any solution-focused possibility. We need to re-think the "middle". 

At another blog, KARE Givers, I wrote about the illogical nature of traditional debate.

People state opinions as absolute facts, and they argue facts emotionally as if they were opinions.

We need a new set of rules around dialog, a new paradigm.

Perhaps if both sides of a dialectic conversation where facts are questioned and opinions are conflicting were to step back from their side to critically analyze what is "right" about the other side's facts, and what of their opinions can be agreed upon, a newly articulated and stronger position could be assumed in the debate. It would also undoubtedly be one that would be more readily accepted by the "other side" owing to the fact that much of the newly assumed position would have originated there.

In my experience personally and professionally I have witnessed dialog turn completely toxic so many times owing to unsophisticated thinking regarding the "other side". What in nearly every case should have been a generative and collaborative discussion with a singular and purposeful agenda to "win" the issue as opposed to "win" the argument, turns into a complete deviation from that. The righteous agenda to discuss an issue purposefully with the intent to improve the reality of the issue being discussed is completely lost at that point.

We're living in a world that is advancing faster than our ability to keep up. We're forced to deal with complex problems revolving around progress and evolution a lot these days. Oftentimes when we come up with something brilliant, it appears to create a cascade of unforeseen challenges that we didn't anticipate.

The "cascade of unforeseen challenges" emerges as a result of polarity. 

Objectivity is hard.

Plato suggested that human behavior emerges from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge. Furthermore, he suggested that the mind could be imagined as a chariot with two horses pulling in opposing directions: one noble and cooperative, and the other wild and uncontrollable. I believe the noble and cooperative horse is objectivity. Objective thinking people aren't inclined to take offense to divided perspectives. They scroll through Bloom's routinely as they consider the different aspects of an idea seeking knowledge and meaning, and also to divine potential applications, analysis of the moving parts of an idea, how to creatively integrate aspects of an idea for purpose, and evaluation of the idea's neo-effectiveness. Objectivity is about knowledge.

The wild and uncontrollable horse is subjectivity. Subjectivity derives from desire and emotion, and is relatively blind to knowledge and facts. As the two horsed dig in refusing to submit, movement in any direction becomes impossible, and paralysis occurs. This is where we're at in society. Both horses would be wise to understand the other's motivations to "win" the battle, giving in on elements of the fight that aren't definingly impactful; backing up toward the chariot where the best perspectives from both sides can gain synergy. Giving up a little bit of rope at a time will lead both horses to a better, less damaging position so the chariot driver doesn't end up with two dead horses while remaining exactly at the place he started inside that chariot.

The best opposition is no opposition. Know thy enemy better than thy friend. It’s easy to “fight”, but hard to win while sustaining damage and expending effort and energy. Strategy is smart. Economize effort by understanding the challenge really well, then win the challenge by being smarter and wasting less energy than the opposition. Use every bit of value they may present to the objective, however small.

Comments

Popular Posts