Integration
How then does one bring about the capacity of a personal or large-scale system to integrate two polarities? To begin with, one ensures that the safeguards are in place and the alarm signals are clearly articulated. Susan, Rick and contemporary societies can address the negative consequences of each option in a constructive manner. Optimally, this formulation could be thought through in a slow and thoughtful manner—with appropriate consideration being given to both home and quest. As a result, Susan and Rick might even be in a place to formulate an integrated vision of Trust for themselves. Home and Quest might walk hand-in-hand into Susan and Rick’s future.
The fundamental recommendation to be made to Susan and Rick in managing this particular polarity is for each of them to remain in the positive domain of each option long enough to identify all (or at least most) of the key benefits and potential actions to be taken that maximize these benefits. Time should also be devoted to and attention (in a slow and systemic manner) directed toward identification of potential ways in which the two policies can be brought together on behalf of an integrated response to the polarity each of them is facing.
Home and quest might potentially join together. Susan can take a new job in Cleveland and thereby retain her home while engaging in a quest. She might similarly invite her boyfriend to join her in attending a couple’s workshop. Perhaps this “quest” for a better relationship can help to ensure that their relationship is sustained (home)—hopefully leading to a long-term shared commitment. Rick can stay in New York City but write a column for his Vermont newspaper. He can also stay connected (via Skype) with family members and some of his old Vermont colleagues.
While these fundamental recommendations (derived from Barry Johnson’s own analysis) may prove adequate for the fulfilling integration of two polarities, I wish to move beyond Johnson—or at least use his insightful analysis as a platform for bringing in other perspectives. I am particularly sensitive to the role played by polarity management in addressing the challenge of integrating polarities related to the six conditions of VUCA-Plus. I find that there are many polarities to confront when living in a VUCA-Plus world—as I have noted in my book on True Freedom (Bergquist, 2024e) and I have noted repeatedly in this series of essays about Essentials and Essence. It is critical, therefore, that we attend to these conditions and to the way they are manifest and managed under conditions of polarity. I begin with a perspective regarding integration under the condition of volatility.
Anti-Fragility
Volatility (V) stands alongside vulnerability and instability when we are standing on the edge of a polarity. Several decades ago, Nassim Taleb (author of the Black Swan) wrote about this volatility and the concurrent vulnerability and instability. Specifically, he noted the fragility that exists in most of our contemporary institutions (Taleb, 2012). They are not designed or prepared for the challenges inherent in a polarized system—especially when a crisis exists within this system. Whether it be the recent COVID-19 crisis in global health care or the weather-related crises associated with Hurricane Katrina or Typhoon Morakat, the institutions of our mid-21st Century world are fragile (Al-Azri, 2020). Yet, according to Taleb (2012, p. 3), some things and some institutions “benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, the is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile.”
Download Article 1K Club
