Polemical Gorges and Their Bridges

Polemical Gorges and Their Bridges 

Stephen B. Willson, Global MBA

 Source: www.pdpics.com

A group of friends decided to go on a hike in the mountains near their hometown.  They met at the trail head early, ensured everyone had the necessary gear, and started up the trail.  As often happens, some moved out ahead while others lagged behind.  Whether this was due to varying physical stamina or varying interest in the scenery, it doesn’t matter.  The main point is they began to move apart. 

Unbeknownst to each other, at a fork in the path each group took a different route.  To complicate matters, they had lost cell phone coverage.  The gravity of the situation only became clear when they spotted each other on opposite sides of a deep gorge.  It was only then they realized they were too far apart to communicate.  Each gestured to the other to try to get them to turn back and take the path they were on, all to no avail.  Neither side would budge.  They had moved so far apart that they had lost common ground and the ability as well as the desire to effectively communicate.

Our society is fractured.  We have well-meaning people on opposite ends of the political spectrum, who, while desiring the best for the people, are nevertheless convinced of the veracity of their positions and the error of those on the other side of the ideological gorge.  Such attitudes lead to the stalemate and dysfunction we see in domestic and international politics today. 

Blame who you will.  Lay it at the feet of the a la carte mass media, which feeds us news that, rather than informing us and challenging our preconceived notions, tells us exactly what we want to hear and thus feeds our own biases.  Accuse the political interest groups, which push their own narrow political agenda at the expense of wider societal benefit.  You can even lay the blame at the feet of the conspiratorial “fifth column,” which is trying to undermine our freedoms and enslave us in whatever post-apocalyptic dystopia you have in mind.  The point is, we are talking past each other, working at cross-purposes and refusing to find compromises; which while not our ideal outcome, could nevertheless provide acceptable outcomes for society in general.  

Lack of compromise leads to what ecologist Garrett Hardin called the Tragedy of the Commons, where all look out exclusively for their own interest and selfishly deplete limited resources to the final detriment of all.  This zero sum approach means no one wins in the long run.  In contrast, cooperation and compromise could lead to more equitable use of these limited resources.

Life is not simple.  Some would have us see it as purely black and white.  It is not.  All too often, though, the black and white view is the one being propagated and believed.  That is because it offers simple, albeit flawed explanations of the issues at hand.  Each situation has its nuances and is seen by the different parties to the issue in different ways.  While these views may be distorted by perspective, lack of information, or outright disinformation; in order to understand the true nature of the issue, we need to understand the various facets of the problem, not just from our own view, but from the view of the other interested parties.  When we do, we may be able to find solutions we can all live with. 

As long as compromise is vilified and compromisers are ostracized, we will never be able to bridge the gulf that has split our society.  Compromise is not getting everything we want and sticking it to the other guy, but about finding a way to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs for all involved.  Rarely will all parties be 100% satisfied with the outcome but at least we will be able to live with the result.

While leading a discussion on arms control, I was once asked why one side had signed a specific treaty when it contained so many provisions that did not benefit that signatory.  Not long before, I had read commentary from analysts on the other side stating that the treaty wasn't fully to their advantage either.  My response to the question was that if both sides felt they didn't get everything they wanted from the treaty; that they had been forced to give something up to achieve it; it must be a good treaty. 

In fact, both sides often agree on the higher overarching goal of a given negotiation, they just don’t agree on the way to get there.  Compromise navigates the contradictions in the two sides' approach to the matter and finds something both can live with.

The ability to compromise and work together is what has allowed humans to progress and innovate.  If our ancestors only accepted doing a task their way, we would still be living in caves and hitting each other over the head with sticks.  Instead, they worked together and learned from people with different ways of thinking to improve their tools and methods, allowing them to build prosperous societies.

Communication requires listening.  While we may not always agree, we can at least try to understand and take into account the other side’s needs.  Tolerance and cooperation begin not when we forcefully conquer others hearts and minds and force them to accept our world view, but when, while disagreeing with them, we nevertheless value others and accept them as individuals with values, needs, dreams, and passions.

 Let’s try to build bridges, not gorges.  Let’s find what unites us.  When we do end up on the other side of the valley, let’s try to understand how the other side got there, what they need, how they see the issue, and find a way to bridge the gulf that lies between us.   

If we are to overcome the challenges facing our country and the world, we need to find ways to move closer together and not further apart.  This does not mean the capitulation of our deeply held beliefs but does require working together to ensure that in pursuit of our own interests, we are not unduly hurting the interests of others.