The swing has begun from left top to left bottom to right top, to right bottom, back again to left top. We are whipped back and forth. As concern (and even anxiety) increases regarding each perspective, the vacillation also increases in both intensity and rapidity. This is what the dynamics of polarization is all about. There is inadequate time and attention given to each option. We swing back and forth. This is the dance of polarity dysfunction.
A Polarity Analysis
With this preliminary framing and charting completed, we turn to what happens when we try to maximize the benefits of either Essential side at the expense of the other side. In the case of supporting individual rights, the maximization of support for personal initiatives and ambitions would tend to delay but ultimately accelerate the acquisition of personal wealth and power, ultimately leading to the formation of an unregulated and often abusive oligarchy (composed of the super-wealthy). Furthermore, we now know that an emphasis on personal rights does not inevitably produce increased desire to achieve or innovate. The “have-nots” are much more likely to fall into a state of despair and lethargy—alienated from the society in which they now live. We would soon witness societal disruption and even revolution as the power and wealth chasm grows wider. At some point, we might find some social reform (or at least increases in charitable contributions) but would probably find that it is too little and too late.
Conversely, if we completely override an Essential concern about personal rights and fully adopt the collective responsibility perspective, then we are likely to witness repressive and intrusive regulations that applied indiscriminately to the lives of those living in this highly controlled society. It might be even more destructive if those living in a society know little about individual rights (as seems to have been the case with the Estonians I interviewed). There is a yearning for something different—for some corrective. Yet, this alternative option is not well known, nor has it often been engaged in a society where a repressive form of collective responsibility has been in force for many years.
At the very least, there would be deeply felt (though often ill-defined) concern within a short period of time regarding the ultimate “heartlessness” of the collective responsibility perspective. Those advocating collective responsibility might have the best of intentions, but the outcomes can be counter-intuitive with citizens feeling just as alienated from the sources of power as they would be in a world dominated by personal rights. We would inevitably find that projections about the potential number of people who would be served by new public policies and priorities become just this: numbers without a focus on the individual, distinctive needs of each citizen. Local neighborhoods (often ethnically or culturally based) are torn down in favor of high-rise towers. Dehumanizing “stone cities” replace distinctive neighborhood enclaves.
Download Article 1K Club
