Conclusions: Building a Bridge Over the Divide
As we have done in other essays/chapters, we introduce a tool that could be of value in addressing the challenges associated with authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, rigidity – and the other attendant issues of our time that seem to fall into deeply divided camps. In these camps there are no experts except those aligned with our camp. There is no authority, no criteria for evaluation other than those fully vetted by and affiliated with our camp.
Polarity-Management
We propose that the challenges associated with authoritarianism and the crisis of expertise can be addressed at least in part by means of a process initially identified by Barry Johnson (1996)—this is polarity management. Johnson’s perspectives and his related tools can guide our actions in the future. I specifically envision a hypothetical forum or series of forums convened to slowly and thoughtfully formulate a viable pandemic policy for the future.
Johnson suggests that polarity management can be used in handling everyday dilemmas. It can also be of great value in addressing major societal contradictions—settings in which there are two or more legitimate but opposite forces at work. Can polarity management help us gain a purchase on problems associated with expertise? We believe it can and turn specifically to the highly polarizing policies regarding our recent (and ongoing) crisis of COVID-19.
Both/And Rather Than Either/Or: Many of those involved already in the deliberation regarding a pandemic policy have framed the policy as an either/or option. To quote Howe (2019), those offering the herd option are taking the follow stand: “. . . the fact remains that herd immunity isn’t merely a possible strategy. In the long run it is the only strategy. The question, then, is how to get there responsibly.” The proponents of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI) and social distancing offer an even more absolutist stance: “the withdrawal of a social distance policy is unethical and immoral. It is counter to everything we hold precious as human beings.”
We will frame our analysis around these two polar-opposite stances and begin by identifying some of the benefits and disadvantages associated with each policy. The benefits in both cases yield short-term (tactical) and long-term (strategic) outcomes. The disadvantages I offer relate to what we don’t know and what might be an unexpected and devastating outcome.
