The first of Perry’s four stages is labeled “Dualism.” In the domain of ethical reasoning, Perry is offering a description of first stage reasoning that is directly aligned with the first stages identified by Piaget in his classic study of moral judgment (1997). The ethics at this first stage are defined by an external authority. The “good book” or sharia law tells us what we should do, as does our esteemed preacher, priest rabbi or Imam. There is no question regarding what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to how we behave. For a dualist who cheats this means that there is the potential for profound dissonance.
Typically, the dualistic perpetrator is in massive denial regarding their transgressions—they are not easily coached. At times, they might be justifying their creating behavior by portraying (in dualistic style) the absolute evil of their adversary (those who do not abide by the “correct” standards of behavior and the “God-given” values that form the foundation of a desired society). It is understandable that one cheats if it means doing what is “right in the world.” We are reminded of many passages in the Torah (Old Testament) where the “good people” lie in order to overcome the “bad people.”
We offer an entertaining and fascinating example of this dualistic justification of bad behavior in achieving “right in the world.” The example is to be found in a recent movie series called “Billions.” A Manhattan district attorney obsessively goes after a highly successful and charismatic hedge fund manager. While the DA justifies highly questionable techniques to entrap the hedge fund manager, the fund manager demonstrates many kind and benevolent behaviors. The emotions that these episodes create are simultaneously and interchangeably empathy and admiration along with contempt and distaste for both of these characters. The message delivered in this story challenges dualism: “good/bad” and “right/wrong” are a matter of perception and context.
As a coach, one must be very careful in confronting a dualistic client regarding this justification—for we can easily be identified as one of the “enemies” (or someone “colluding” with or “sympathetic” to the enemy’s cause).
For Perry, there is often a movement past ethical dualism as one begins to engage the “real” world with all of its ambiguity–and in recent years the challenges of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, turbulence and, in particular, contradiction (VUCA-Plus, Bergquist, 2020). If “right” and “wrong” are not always clearly present in the books we read (or in the movies we watch) and the authoritative pronouncements we hear, then what are we to do?
There is the notable Jewish tale regarding the wise rabbi (who certainly is not a dualist). The rabbi’s assistant observes how the rabbi listens carefully to the complaints made by a member of the rabbi’s synagogue against another member. At the end of this conversation, the rabbi declares that the appellant is “right” – “absolutely right.” The adversary now enters and recounts their version of the story to the rabbi. At the conclusion of this alternative narrative, the rabbi declares “you are right, absolutely right.” When the second member leaves the room, the rabbi’s assistant speaks out in exasperation: “Rabbi, both of these men can’t be right! One of them must be wrong!” The Rabbi replies to his assistant: “Your are right, absolutely right.” The assistant is caught in a moment of learning and development at this point. If there is no obvious “good” and “bad” then perhaps there are multiple truths that must all be embraced.
Download Article 1K Club
