The Shattered Tin Man Midst the Shock and Awe in Mid-21st Century Societies I: Shattering and Shock

I have written a series of essays that feature the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz, along with his colleagues in Oz and several real-life therapists who I bring in to treat the Tin Man (Bergquist, 2023a, Bergquist, 2023b, Bergquist, 2023c). Furthermore, in association with my colleague, Kevin Weitz, I have written a series of essays (Bergquist and Weitz, 2022, Bergquist and Weitz, 2023a, Bergquist and Weitz, 2023b, Weitz and Bergquist, 2021, Weitz and Bergquist, 2022a, Weitz and Bergquist, 2022b, Weitz and Bergquist, 2022c, Weitz and Bergquist, 2023) and an entire book (Weitz and Bergquist, 2024) concerning the current status of American communities that are filled with suspicion, distrust and social unrest. Crises of expertise and belief pervade the world in which many of us live.

In this essay, I wish to bring these two sets of concepts together so that we might consider how the Tin Man and his colleagues in Oz would fare in the mid-21^st Century. Specifically, I focus on the impact of something I call VUCA-Plus (Bergquist, 2020) which are conditions of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, turbulence and contradiction that I propose shocks the established settings in which the Tin Man and those associated with the Tin Man in Oz had been living during the 20^th Century. I also propose that the psyches of the Tin Man et al have been shattered by these challenging BUVA-Plus conditions. Jim Vandehei (2024) of Axios has recently written about the splintering of American society into 12 realities. I take his analysis a step further by suggesting that each of these 12 realities has been created in response to the shattering of 20^th Century reality for all of us.

The Tin Man’s World

Let’s first consider the world in which the original Tin Man lived. Frank Baum wrote the Oz books early in the 20^th Century.  This was a world (at least in Western societies) where things on the surface appeared to be relatively stable. Certainty was to be found in the traditions that were held firmly in place. These traditions were reinforced by a grand narrative of Western origins that prevailed in most societies of the early 20^th Century.  Most collective operations (economic and political) were engaged in a simple manner during this horse and buggy era—leaving most families with clarity regarding how things worked and what they could anticipate in the future. A World’s Fair in St. Louis declared that the world was prosperous and would remain calm and consistent throughout the 20^th Century.

Then came World War I. Yet, even this war didn’t shake things up for long (even with massive casualties and physical destruction). There was escape from reality in most Western societies during the 1920s. People of the Western World were reassured that stability, certainty, simplicity, clarity, calm and consistency would reassert itself. However, the 1930s brought about a profound dismantling of this reassurance, as the Western World fell into a Great Depression and authoritarian rule rose to the surface in many European societies.

The Wizard of Oz was produced as a Hollywood movie at the end of the 1930s (in 1939). The Great Depression was coming to an end (thanks in part to the economy of war in the early 1940s). However, failed leadership was still quite evident in most Western countries. The prospect of a second world war was looming over all societies in the world. It would seem that all was not well in America or other societies in the world.

Specifically, all was not well for the Tin Man in this 1939 setting. Somehow his joints got rusted in a rainstorm. Why didn’t he get out of the rain – and could the rust really occur so rapidly? Was the Tin Man stuck in place for a quite different reason? Was he frozen in place as a result of some trauma in his life – as Robert Sapolsky notes regarding the frozen state of many human beings (Sapolsky, 2004)? Was the Tin Man, like most residents of the late 1930s (both fictional and real) trying to recover from the trauma of economic collapse (the Great Depression) while looking forward with dread to the fall once again into massive global conflict?

Yet the Tin Man was rescued by Dorothy and the Scarecrow. His rusted joints were oiled and his heart was recovered. Then, joined by the Cowardly Lion and the ever-present Toto, the Tin Man and his colleagues in the land of Oz found a pathway (Yellow Brick Road). In our narrative, characters in Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz were joined by two other characters who helped to direct treatment of the Tin Man.

They were Wilhelm Reich and Moshe Feldenkrais, two leading though controversial pioneers in the world of healing arts. All was restored and healed for the Tin Man and his colleagues. They reached the Emerald City and found a new state of stability, certainty, simplicity, clarity, calm and consistency in Oz or back home in Kansas. But then the late 20^th Century and early 21^st Century spun out with new challenges of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, turbulence and contradiction. Neither Kansas nor Oz would ever be the same.

Shattering of the Tin Man and His Companions

What would it be like for the Tin Man and his companions in Oz if we did a bit of time travel and bring them all into the middle of the 21^st Century? In the movie, Dorothy noted to Toto when they arrived in Oz that “we are not in Kansas anymore.” She is likely to declare now, after being delivered into the middle of our century that “we are not in the 20^th Century anymore.” Let’s assume that our visitors to Oz have been living in our mid-21^st Century land for a while. What has happened to all of them?

Broken Glass: Shards and Shattering Expectations

I first wish to set the stage by identifying each of the 12 realities proposed by Jim Vandehei—for the occupants of Oz are likely to be living in one of these realities. While Vandehei focuses on the ways in which media shapes reality, I would add in the power of social exchange within specific groups that are often age-related or built around ethnic, racial or religious identities. In recent years, these social exchange networks are often built around what Robert Bellah and his colleagues have identified as “life-style enclaves” (Bellah, et al, 1985. I would suggest that in mid-21^st Century life these enclaves can be found among people who live near each other in a community, occasionally gather together, or stay connected through digital modes of communication).

The first group (shard) identified by Vandehei is named after Elon Musk the powerful renegade entrepreneur. The Musk-eteers are a fast-growing, mostly male group of young adulthood and middle age. They lean toward the innovative idea and produce—but are often indiscrete in their leanings.  Their primary media outlet is (of course) Twitter. They also love podcasts and the work of independent reporters who use social media and digital newsletters to appear nontraditional (like their hero Elon Musk). This first group is clearly the produce of mid-21^st Century life.

Instagrammers are Vandehei’s second shard. Vandehei suggests that this group is made up mostly of young to middle-aged women in college and the professional class. I would suggest that members of this group love to connect with other people. They tend to form digital enclaves, and are actively engaged with visual forms of digital journalism. Vanhehei notes that the Instagrammers tend to gravitate toward influential voices in the creator economy (an economy that allows many people to create their own product or service that can readily be marketed on the Internet).

Vandehei’s third group are the TikTok kids. His nomination of children as a separate group is an acknowledgement that children play an important role in the creation of 21s Century reality.  Apparently, most children (who do not live in poverty) obtain much of their information about the world not from their parents or peers—but from TikTok and other digital sources that provide easily assimilated content. As rapid consumers of information, these kids with dexterous thumbs scroll rapidly through pictures and microbursts of information.

Vandehei’s fourth and fifth shard move to the other end of the age spectrum. The fourth consists of “new-age grandmas” who are likely to rely on Facebook (as their offsprings did several years ago). However, the “new” facebook is less likely to convey news and is now more likely to provide these digital grandmas with pictures of their grandkids, brief video snippets of dogs doing outrageous things, or masterful photographs of birds in flight or lovely sunsets.

The man sitting next to this digitally-enthralled grandmother is likely to be a Right-wing grandpa. According to Vandehei, senior citizens, especially men, still flock to Fox News — especially in prime time, and especially around popular personalities (who suggest that they report the news when they actually devote most of their time to manufacturing and describing a new reality–and reinforcing this reality with “alternative facts.”  It is understandable that health-related matters often plays an important role in the life of these men—as does a strong desire for the return of mid-21^st Century society to “the good old days” (that never really existed).

While the right-wing grandpas serve as only a minor threat to the more liberal-leaving shards of American society, the MAGA mind melders serve as a major threat. As Vandeheri notes, this “new conservative news ecosystem would seem like a distant planet to anyone whose habits were formed pre-Trump.” The reality created by Donald Trump and his enclave offer a quite different version of appropriate governance structures and the role to be played by the privileged and underprivileged in mid-21^st Century society. Those living in this shard go beyond the senior citizen dream of the “good old days.” They are trying to create “new days” that more closely resembles that of anxiety fiefdoms than the mid-20^th Century life envisioned by the “old guys.”

I would add another cautionary (perhaps alarming) observation regarding the MAGA mind melders. They are not satisfied to have their own shard. They also apparently wish to continue shattering the overall fragile structure of American society. Primarily, the MAGA mind melders polarize and shatter by discovering (or inventing) many enemies who are to be confronted and destroyed. In a recent publication read by many MAGA folks, articles were presented on such diverse, contentious topics as the way synthetic fragrances “wreak hormone havoc”, EPS climate regulators are a “hoax”, fluoride has a hidden presence, the US is entering the Doom loop of Deficit-Debt-Inflation, pharma is “buying” many governments, and the Chinese Communist Party is the US biggest enemy (and the source of COVID).  So many enemies and so little time to defeat them all!

We now turn to the opposite side of the political spectrum when identifying Vandehei’s seventh shard. These are the liberal warriors. Vandehei suggests that we “think of Rachel Maddow as patron saint of this bloc.” Members of this group are likely to identify themselves as open-minded and rational in their approach to alternative 21^st Century perspective—they turn (sometimes) to respectable printed (and digital) sources such as the New York Times, The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Yet, they usually only turn to the opinion section of the NT times and to articles in these prestigious magazines that reinforce their own passionate (perhaps irrational) view of the world. Thee openminded folks express complete distain for views of the right-wing grandpas and (in particular) the MAGA folks.

The next two shards relate specifically to the economic power that resides in contemporary American society. The Elite power-consumers constitute the eight group in Vandehei’s taxonomy. Those operating in this group tend to be college-educated (usually graduating from a high-prestige Ivy League or West Coast university). Until recently, they would be male and highly ambitious. They follow the news because it impacts their professional career. They tend to lean toward main-stream Republication perspectives and are struggling with the overtaking of their grand old party by the MEGA folks.

The ninth shard is composed of the financiers and those who view the world primarily in terms of monetary goals. As Donald Trump once said, money is the only way to keep score regarding life success.  The Wall Street Journal is the bible for these midlife professionals (mostly men). CNBC is their primary source of ongoing information. New York City is their “hometown” and Wall Street is their “main street.” While this shard is not large in number, it is quite big with regard to economical (and ultimately political) influence.

The tenth shard is concerned with the folks who tend to focus their attention on one thing—be it the field in which they work or the avocation in which they are fully absorbed. Those people in this group are called Niche-ers by Vandehei. These folks tend to be highly-educated, middle-class and both male and female. Vandehei suggests that this is often a subset of elites—and like the elites, the Niche-ers are Internet-wizards. According to Vandehei, these folks exploit the abundance of high-quality, in-the-weeds news on the Internet. The internet is Nirvana if they are seeking out a new job or a new pub to visit. The internet is also critical if the Niche-er is living in a country (such as the USA) that is far away from their homeland. Very few choices are made without first looking at their computer—or more often nowadays the mobile device that carry with them all the time. For these men and women of foreign origins, the Internet is often their primary pathway back to their family and other loved ones.

Vandehei’s eleventh shard consisted of people from the emerging majority. These are upwardly mobile, college-educated Latinos and Black Americans. I would add other members of 21^st Century societies who are marginalized—such as members of LGBQ+ communities. As Vandehei notes, members of this shard often no longer have specialized printed publications to read. Sometime, they’ve turned their attention to trusted journalists in mainstream to make sense of the world—and these trusted sources are often found on specialized Internet sources. Understandable, there often is a lack of trust in many traditional mainstream sources (such as are found on TV and cable news stations). Furthermore, the kind of information which these marginalized and expanding groups request are only found in specialized (niche) Internet sources. Where do I find a Gay bar in this city? What is the employment record for minorities in this corporation?

Finally, there is the shard that is actually a shard-by-default when it comes to Vandehei’s media preferences. These are the people whom Vandehei labels the Passive-ists. Vandehei notes that on most days, this might be the biggest group. If shared characteristics are chosen which relates to matters other than media preferences, then there might be many more distinctive splinter groups to identify that make up the highly diverse population of mid-21^st Century American society. Vandehei suggests that members of the default shard are primarily those people who are either too busy or too disinterested in news to hunt for it. Vanderhei notes that these folks may bump into the news, often accidentally, as they chat or buy things — or scroll through fun stuff.

I would add to what Vandehei has suggested about this final group. It may often be a more assertive antipathy to the news that keeps members of this passive-ist group away from any TV, Cable, Internet or Social Media venues that provide news. They are either “sick” of the news, don’t trust anyone offering “unbiased” reports, or simply believe that they have no power or influence regarding what is happening in the world. To listen to the news is to confront one’s powerlessness—and a sense of powerlessness and attendant hopelessness have been found to be a major source of anxiety, depression and poor health (Seligman, 1992).

The splintering of realities in the formation of 21^st Century American societal shards produce the VUCA-Plus conditions. There is greater volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, turbulence and contradiction precisely because Americans in various subgroups view reality in quite different ways. Furthermore, reality in each of the twelve shards is supercharged precisely because those dwelling in this shard must somehow hold their worldview together in the midst of the splintering effects of VUCA-Plus. It is a very challenging interdependence between the 12 shards and VUCA-Plus—and a very challenging world in which our previous residents of Oz must dwell.

Shattering of the Tin Man

The Tin Man is bewildered and returns to his frozen state when faced with the torrent of mid-21^st Century “rain.” He has joined Vandehei’s Passive-ist shard. His 21^st Century freeze consists of positioning himself in a reclining chair and spends most of his day viewing lumberman competitions on his 48-inch TV screen.  There is an entire channel on his cable package that is devoted to forest-related matters. He especially loves the ax throwing events and the contests involving chopping down trees and sawing timber. The Tin Man’s sense of agency in the world is shattered. He is no longer frozen in a forest of Oz but is instead now frozen in his apartment sitting on his Barcalounger. He watches other people wield axes rather than wield one himself.

The story doesn’t end here—for our Tin Man is not stupid and he does have a caring heart. He takes out the award (a large heart) that he had received from the Wizard. It was for philanthropy. The Tin Man decides to leave his recliner behind. He decided that he would become a philanthropist of the 21^st Century and would donate money and time to a worthy organization. He would become one of Vandehei’s liberal warriors.

The Tin Man thought that a union for those involved in the lumber industry would be appropriate. He tried to contact the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen; however, he found that this union had gone out of business many years ago. This should have served as a stop light for our Tin Man: he was clearly out of date regarding the field of lumbering. He probably should have become one of Vandehei’s Niche-ers—checking everything out on the Internet before venturing out to the world of loggers and philanthropists without sufficient knowledge.

Our Tin Man was not deterred. He kept looking around for an appropriate union to which he could give money and time. The closest he could come was the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. He called the headquarters of this large union and talked to one of the “outreach” staff members. She listened patiently as the Tin Man spoke of his own history as someone who chopped down trees. A carefully worded statement was delivered by the “outreacher.” She noted that the cutting of trees was not under the auspices of this carpenter union and that tree cutting had moved quite a way since axes were being used to cut and trim trees. Our “outreacher” gently mentioned that heavily mechanized processes and new digital lazar technologies were taking the place not only of men wielding axes, but men wielding saws. She thanked the Tin Man for his short sharing of lumbering history and suggested he enroll in a technical college to learn more about the new lumber-processing technologies.

The persistent Tin Man was not to be dissuaded. He decided that if he could assist with those that cut down trees, then he could at least assist those who ensure that trees are not destroyed by fire. He made a call to the headquarters of the international Association of Firefighters in Washington D.C. Once again, he was immediately transferred to someone in the public relations office. Our Tin Man indicates that he wanted to contribute money and his considerable talent to this association. The P.R. staff member said he would send a contribution form to the Tin Man and asked for his email address.

Our bewildered Tin Man indicated that he did not have an email address. He was far, far removed from Vandehei’s world of Internet Niche-ing (with the acquisition of relevant information being essential). Could the form be sent by physical mail. This approach met with reluctant approval. The Tin Man then spoke of his background as someone who cut down trees with an axe. After a few moments of muffled laughter, the Association employee suggested that the Tin Man might be of greatest assistance by donating his axe to one of the many firefighter museums in the United States—since fires are often fought by cutting down trees in specific “control lanes” to block the spread of fires.

The Tin Man hung up the telephone. His vision of philanthropy was shattered. He was about to throw his heart-shape award into the trash can but decided instead to put it back into his apartment closet. The despondent Tin Man turned on his TV, which was still tuned to the forest channel. He grabs a Dr. Pepper from the fridge and some chips from the cupboard, and settles back into his Barcalounger for an afternoon of axe throwing and tree toppling.  Welcome back to the Passive-ists shard.

Shattering of the Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion

What about the Tin Man’s companions? The Scarecrow decided to do something important with his brain. He went to a community college in Oz and obtained an Associate of Arts Degree with a major in political science, along with a teaching certificate. A job awaited our Scarecrow at a local high school. The administrators of this school were desperate regarding a shortage of teachers and readily hired the Scarecrow. He began t

Our Scarecrow had manufactured his own version of reality. The connections to be made with the actual world in which he lived were shattered. As a very “smart” being, the Scarecrow did a clever job of picking up a bit of “real” history and bending it to his own perspectives and values. There was speculation that he was suffering from some cortical damage (perhaps too much time in the poppy fields). A neurological exam was required. Nothing was found to be wrong. Eventually, after several years of teaching, and multiple complaints from parents, the Scarecrow was asked to leave the teaching profession. He now sits at home and occasionally works on his own unique written history of Oz.

The Tin Man’s other nonhuman companion, the Cowardly Lion, has found a new life in the 21^st Century. He has been elected by the citizens of Oz to serve as a councilman. His campaign featured a notable slogan: Rallying Oz Against Reform (ROAR). For our lion, the present operations of Oz are fine and there is no need for any of the changes that his opponent proposed. Those with a lot of money and power fully deserve what they have acquired. Those without money or power also deserve their unfortunate status in Oz society. There is a just balance that is not to be disturbed.

Like the Scarecrow, our Cowardly Lion had helped to create a shard in Oz that was equivalent to the MAGA-minders. In his case, political power was used to create his version of reality rather than the educational power that the scarecrow engaged unsuccessfully. The Cowardly Lion also held the advantage of appealing to the elderly male population of Oz. They sat back, applauded the Lion, and even sent him some of their hard-earned money they had saved for their retirement.

We see in the Cowardly Lion’s campaign of roaring, a shattering of any coherent value system. He ceased to take risks on behalf of the welfare of another person as he did in helping Dorothy to find her way back to Kansas. Instead, he sat back and advocated a value-free deference to power and wealth. He cashed in the money he had raised during his campaign. Though he lost his second election to remain a councilman, he had been able to divert enough money from his campaign chest to live comfortably ever after in the Emerald City.

Shattering of Dorothy

What about Dorothy? Under the stress of mid-21^st Century life, Dorothy began to revert back to the perspective she held while living in Kansas prior to her visit to Oz. She once again yearned for escape to a land that exists beyond the rainbow and failed yet again to acknowledge the value inherent in the relationships that she now had with people who lived this side of the rainbow.

I borrow from a tale told by Philip Slater (1970, p.8) in his book about loneliness, for it fits very well with what I imagine to be the life being led by Dorothy in the 21^st Century.

Dorothy is seeking to escape from the unsatisfying relationships that exist in her current 21^st Century life. She goes to live alone in a cottage she had found in a Kansas forest. The cottage and the forest remind her of Oz.  She was content at first but a bitter Kansas winter has led her to cut down the trees around her cottage for firewood. The next summer in Kansas was very hot. Dorothy was uncomfortable because her cottage had no shade. She complained bitterly of the harshness of the elements—and longed for her time in Oz.

Dorothy made a little garden and kept some chickens; but rabbits were attracted by the food in the garden and ate much of it. Dorothy went into the forest and trapped a fox, which she tamed and taught to catch rabbits. But the fox ate up Dorothy’s chickens as well. She shot the fox and cursed the treachery of mother nature and wild creatures. Why aren’t the animals of Kansas more like her friend, the Cowardly Lion?

Dorothy didn’t have Aunt Em to pick up after her, so she threw her garbage on the floor of her cottage. Herr home was soon swanned with mice and rats (kind of like the flying vermin that she confronted in Oz). Dorothy recalled that her uncle had built a fancy contraption in their barn to hold up the feed for his cattle. Dorothy decided to build a similar system of hooks and pulleys so that everything in her Cottage could be suspended from the ceiling. But the strain was too much for the flimsy cottage and it soon collapsed. Dorothy grumbled about the inferior construction of the cottage and purchased a new one.

One day she boasted to several people in her old town in Kansas about the peaceful beauty and plentiful game surrounding her forest home. Afterall, there weren’t many forests left in Kansas. Most of them had been cut down to make way for the farmland. The folks in her old town were impressed and reported back to their neighbors, who began to use the area for picnics and hunting excursions. Dorothy was upset by this and cursed the intrusiveness of these Kansans. She began posting signs, setting traps, and shooting at those who came near her dwelling. In revenge groups of boys would come at night from time to time to frighten her and steal things.

Dorothy took to sleeping every night in a chair by the window with a loaded shotgun across her knees. One night she turned in her sleep and shot off her foot. The folks of Kansas were chastened and saddened by this misfortune and thereafter stayed away from Dorothy’s part of the forest. She became lonely and cursed the unfriendliness and indifference of her former neighbors—and longed for her days with the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion (and missed Toto). And in all of this Dorothy saw no agency except what lay outside herself. for which reason, and because of her ingenuity, some of the folks in Kansas proclaimed that she epitomizes the true American Spirit.

While Dorothy might represent the “true American Spirit” for some people, she personally viewed her life as a shattered mess. On the one hand, like most Americans, Dorothy desired community, meaningful engagement with other people, and a modicum of interdependence. However, like most Americans of the mid-21^st Century, there is reduced trust on the part of Dorothy regarding the competency and (in particular) intentions of her neighbors. The third element of trust is also absent. This concerns shared perspective and values.

Dorothy has decided to live along in her cottage because of the absence of this trust—and her own actions produced results that reinforced her lack of trust. She longs for the companionship she had found in Oz, but does nothing to bring about this companionship in md-21^st Century Kansas. There is no Emerald city that would bring her together with other people around a common goal and there was no yellow brick road to provide a shared pathway to a common goal (if there had been one). The world in which Dorothy dwelled was (and still is) saturated with polarized views regarding goals and pathways, as well as shared mistrust regarding the competencies, intentions and perspectives of those in a leadership role in mid-21^st Century institutions.

We leave Dorothy shattered and lonely in her cottage. For Dorothy, the only option was living a passive-ist life. Later, as she grew older, Dorothy joined Vandehei’s new age grandma group (though she had no children nor any pets). She became a qualified member of this group because of her obsessive search on Facebook for something of interest. She was looking for engagement that did not require relating to other people. She desired community without any required obligations. It was all about living vicariously in life and living at a distance from any true relationship. This is the “new age” for elderly women.

We can’t forget Toto, who had been Dorothy’s faithful compassion in Oz. It seems that Dorothy was trying to escape not only her relationship with people but also with her beloved Toto. She sent her pup to an animal shelter, hoping that he would find a better home. Unfortunately, no one seemed to want this older dog. The shelter had no other choice (other than euthanasia) than to ship Toto with several other dogs to a state that welcomed older animals and guaranteed that unwanted pets are not put to death. Toto was soon embraced by an older couple, and lived the rest of his life in a small town that reminded him of Kansas.

Viability of the Witch and Wizard

We can also ask about the Wizard and the Wicked Witch of the West. Our Witch died in the 1930s movie, so is not with us in the 21^st Century [though in real life, Margaret Hamilton, the woman playing the witch in the move did live long after the movie was released. As a Hollywood actor with a long and distinguished career, Margaret was not able to find many jobs in Hollywood after portraying the wicked witch in such a convincing manner. Her craggy physical appearance and cackly voice became definitive of witchdom for time immemorial.

I suspect that she never joined the new-age grandma group—for she remained a revered and generous member of her Maine community throughout the rest of her life (though she stilled scared children when they met her!)

Our Wizard did survive the time travel. It seems that hucksters always seem to remain viable—regardless of societal conditions. Now, in the 21^st Century, he has become a Radio Talk Show host who has created his own reality (as he did in the 1930s) and has a dedicated and adoring audience. Unlike the Scarecrow, our Wizard of Oz has not been “outed” or ousted for his warped reality.

While the Scarecrow was unable to pick those who were to judge his grasp of reality (these being the parents of his students and the school board), the Wizard (like many other talk show hosts) has been free to do and say whatever he wants because his immediate judges have been appointed by him (as the acolytes he has drew to his program) and his ultimate judges (the sponsors of his program) are value-free and nonjudgemental with regard to anything other than audience size (and ultimately advertising revenues). The MAGA mind melders welcomed our Wizard into their group and he graciously accepted their invitation.

Then there were the two gentlemen who were brought to the land of Oz by one of us [WB] for the purpose of “healing” our Tin Man. Unfortunately, neither the Tin Man nor his companions are to receive any assistance from either Wilhelm Reich or Moise Feldenkrais. As products of the 20^th Century, both Reich and Feldenkrais are no longer alive. They did not time travel with the Tin Man. Furthermore, if they had time traveled, neither of these gifted therapists would probably be available to visit Oz. They both would have been distracted by the struggles going on in Israel, the homeland for both of them for many years. We suspect that both Reich and Feldenkrais would be concerned not only with the survival of Israel but also with the belligerent stance they are taking with regard to their Palestinian neighbors. Both Reich and Feldenkrais would also have 21^st Century problems of their own that needed attention.

Shattering of Moise Feldenkrais

Moise Feldenkrais would be tending to challenges associated with acceptance of his methods as viable strategies for bringing about and sustaining health. While he would readily be identified as a liberal warrior, there were matters to be attended that didn’t fit well with this group. Multiple studies have been done by independent research teams that tend to report minimal impact of the Feldenkrais procedures on the health of those engaged in treatment. Furthermore, there is a plethora of alternative treatment methods (many of which have “borrowed” from the perspectives and practices of Feldenkrais). The Feldenkrais treatment centers still constitute only a small fraction of the physical and mental therapy market.

Moise Feldenkrais would have to be engaged in extensive marketing and promotion of his approaches to therapy. This probably would not be his strong suit. Furthermore, the two shards that would be most aligned with his practices were occupied by the new-age grandmas and right-wing grandpas. They could benefit from his therapy as they grew older and their bones began to creak. However, their own political views would contrast sharply with those of Feldenkrais. He would have to hold his tongue and cease his socially-critical writing. This would have been hard –and shattering—for Moise Feldenkrais.

There is one other important point. If Feldenkrais was to be successful in expanding his practice, then he would have to do more training. During his own lifetime, training by Moise of Feldenkrais therapists was restricted to two locations (Lone College in San Francisco and Hampshire College in Massachusetts).  The shattering of Moise Feldenkrais would probably have taken place in the requirement that he move beyond the comfortable confines of exciting treatment innovation and selective training of highly motivated students.

He would now have to “sell his soul” as a social critique, and would soon be in the much less appealing business of management, marketing and promoting his program. He would be teaching students who would be more interested in diversifying their existing practice and expanding their source of revenues than in learning something new and radical. Like many therapeutic innovators (ranging from Sigmund Freud to Jonas Salk), Moise Feldenkrais would not be a gifted empire builder. He would have to leave this work up to those who embraced his work.

Shattering of Wilhelm Reich

For Wilhelm Reich, the challenges would be even greater. He had moved early in his career to modes of therapy that were quite controversial and have remained controversial today. Furthermore, his political allegiances and personal life crises led him down a path of self-destruction. It is a real-life path that parallels in many respects the hypothetical path that we have outlined for the Tin Man and his companions. Like the Tin Man, the life of Wilhelm Reich was shattered. He was left a broken man when he died in 1957.

The Wilhelm Reich that we brought into the drama of Tin Man treatment was a successful and influential psychoanalyst who at one time was even considered by Sigmund Freud to be the heir apparent to Freud himself as leader of the psychoanalytic movement. But then the dynamic reality of the 20^th Century impinged on Reich and he eventually became a shattered man who died in a prison (or asylum) in a hostile American society.

It all began when Reich was in a world as wonderful as Oz. He met Sigmund Freud in 1919, became the director of training at the Psychoanalytic Institute in Vienna in 1924 and was considered by Freud at one time to be the prospective head of the psychoanalytic movement after his death. It was at this time that Reich wrote Character Armor (in German)—the perspective he was to take alongside that of Moise Feldenkrais when working with our Tin Man. His work influences the perspectives and practices of other therapists (such as Fritz Perls, Alexander Lowen and Arthur Janov, who were to become quite popular, though (like Reich) controversial in the psychotherapeutic practices of the late 20^th Century.

Reich was to become one of Vandehei’s liberal warriors – or was he soon to become a Musk-eteer. He began taking a yellow brick road that led away from Freud’s Vienna and toward the Soviet Union and later Norway, the United States and a federal prison—yielding a strange fellowship in both the world of liberal warrior and world of huckstering Musk-eteer. The orientation toward Freud’s psychoanalysis was coupled in the mind and heart of Wilhelm Reich with support for the doctrines of Marx’s communism– and later with enthrallment in the machinery of organic energy.

Like many of Freud’s other early followers, Reich wished to couple Freud and Marx, as the two great revolutionary thinkers of the late 19^th and early 20^th Century. We see this coupling most successfully engaged in the work of the Frankfort school and most popularly presented in the writings of Erich Fromm. While Freud himself was never attracted to communism, he was eager to expand his theory to encompass all of civilization (rather than just psychotherapeutic treatment) (Jacoby, 1983). Furthermore, Freud was open to accepting all comers (including those who saw Freud as a “liberator” of feminine sexuality and as well as an appropriate companion to the liberation of oppressed people).

Wilhelm Reich was to embrace and extend the integration of therapy, politics and sex throughout his remaining life. Along with his wife, Reich spent time in the Soviet Union. Beginning with this trip in 1929, Reich was to write extensively from a communist perspective during the 1930s. Soviet leaders were not particularly enamored with Reich and were relieved when he left their country. They were particularly relieved when Reich began to blend his critique of modern society with a strong statement about the need to liberate sexual practices. He emphasized “orgastic potency,” wrote about “The Function of the Orgasm,” and acted upon his proclivities by having affairs with his female patients and moving through several marriages.

With all of this came controversy from many quarters – psychological, biological and political. As Russell Jacoby (1983, p. 83) has noted: “Reich was the Job of the psychoanalytic movement, assaulted from every direction.” While Albert Einstein was to meet with Reich and show interest in orgone energy, the rest of the professional school was to scoff at Reich’s perspectives and practices. Midst this controversy, Reich was to move many times (often against his will) and eventually ended up (briefly) on the New School faculty in New York City.

Reich’s life began to shatter at this point. Some of those who were close to his, suggested that he was losing his cognitive capacity by the early 1930s. Other said he was beginning to go mad. If nothing else, Wilhelm Reich was becoming isolated.  “Almost simultaneously,” notes Jacoby (1983, pp. 83-84), “he was expelled from both the Communist party and – an especially grievous blow—form the International Psychoanalytic Association. . . . If Reich lost his mental equilibrium, he had sufficient cause.”

Yet another shattering was attributable to law enforcement. Reich was arrested by the FBI soon after the start of World War II for his political views and the potential “subversive” influence of his orgone project.  Though his seminal work on character armor (Reich, 1980) was published for the first time in English during the late 1940s—and brought him critical support—the focus of his own life was far away from the character armor studies of the 1920s in Vienna.  Reich not only began to build “orgone accumulators” at his new home in Maine, but also was to invent the cloudbuster (to deal with another source of energy along with the orgone). He complimented these cutting-edge technologies with belief that our planet was under attack (via “energy alphas”) from UFOs.  He was a long way away from Kansas (for him Vienna) and there was certainly not the fantasy world of Oz to protect Wilhelm Reich.

The FBI continued to investigate his practices. He called out the HIGS” (hoodlums in government). His orgone accumulators were destroyed and banned. Six tons of his books were burned in New York City and he was eventually arrested and sent to prison on March 12, 1957. Deeply depressed and perhaps psychotic,

Wilhelm Reich died in prison on November 3, 1957. Many books, films and even songs have been written about Reich’s life and work. Yet, one can’t help but conclude that he was a shattered man by the end of his life. The world in which he lived and worked after World War II was never aligned with his own head and heart. He never could have been successful in treating the Tin Man or even himself during the second half of the 20^th Century – even with the help of an orgone accumulator. He failed in both the world of liberal warrior and Musk-eteer huckster.

Shock and Shattering

I have portrayed a hypothetical shift in the life of our Wizard of Oz characters from the early and mid-20^th Century to the late 20^th Century and early 21^st Century. I have suggested the Vandehei shard that might welcome each of them. I have also suggested how their life in a specific shard might cause them to lead a life that is shattered. This shattering comes not only from the choices they have made in living and working in the mid-21^st Century. It also comes from the challenges that each of them must make in living with the challenging VUCA-Plus conditions of our mid-century society. Within each of the 12 shards, we will find that the challenges being faced accelerate for all of our OZ characters –and for each of us in real life.

There is now a dominating state of volatility (V), uncertainty (U), complexity (C), and ambiguity (A) in our world that is coupled with, turbulence and contradiction (VUCA-Plus) (Bergquist, 2022). This shocking VUCA-Plus condition has played a central role in the shattering of our Tin Man and his companions from Oz. At this point, to provide some clarity about these VUCA-Plus conditions and how they interact with Vandehei’s 12 chards, I will dwell briefly on the meaning to be assigned to each of the VUCA-Plus terms, suggest how we might expand on VUCA-Plus, and relate each VUCA-Plus conditions to one or more of the 12 shards. I will also suggest ways in which these conditions have impacts on our Oz characters—and on each of us.

Environment and Epistemology

Two of the original aspects of VUCA (Complexity and Volatility) have to do with environment (the number and nature of the elements found in a specific setting.  One of these aspects, Complexity, concerns the many elements in a specific setting as well as the dynamic interactions that exist among these elements. This setting is complex because we have to consider not only the number of elements (making the setting complicated) but also the interactions and interdependencies (making the setting complex) (Miller and Page, 2007). The second environmental aspect, Volatility, refers to the rate and shifting rate of change among the elements as they interact with one another.  It is all a bit confusing when everything is related to everything else—and everything is always changing.

The other two aspects of VUCA have to do with epistemology (the way in which knowledge is acquired and reality is defined). Ambiguity concerns the assessment of both the evidence available regarding reality and the meaning assigned to this reality. Reality can appear in quite “fuzzy” form. The fourth aspect, Uncertainty, is about the stability of any assessment being made regarding reality. Under conditions of uncertainty, reality seems to be changing in unexpected ways over a short period of time. Why should we do an extensive assessment, make plans or offer expert predictions if our world is hazy, swirling and always surprising us?

VUCA is deservedly becoming the coin-of-the-realm among those who assess, plan and predict while serving in the mid-21^st Century role of leader or expert. The challenges associated with VUCA are deservedly considered large in number and size.  To make matters even more “realistic”—and challenging—I have added two other aspects to VUCA. As I have noted, they are turbulence and contradiction. Both of these aspects are interwoven in the tapestry of VUCA. They each add a further layer of challenge to that now being faced by us in our mid-21^st Century society. Turbulence concerns the interplay between rapid change, cyclical change, stagnation and chaos within our current world. Contradiction concerns the ongoing delivery of messages that are each perfectly valid. However, each message offers quite different perspectives on and interpretations of reality.

We must make decisions in settings that are filled with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Decisions must be made in a turbulent environment that is swirling with contradictory versions of reality and polarizing values. We are worn out having to grapple every day with the conditions of VUCA-Plus. Many observers of our contemporary social condition have gone so far as to suggest that this an era of Great Exhaustion (e.g. Newport, 2016; Stoycheva, 2022). Thoughtful consideration and caring compassion are required—even when we are overloaded and tired.  Furthermore, analyses we have made and decisions we have enacted are subject to frequent review and modification as we try to navigate a turbulent and contradictory VUCA world. This would certainly have been the case with those characters from Oz who have been transported into the 21^st Century.

Volatility

Volatility refers to the dynamics of change: its accelerating rate, intensity and speed as well as its unexpected catalysts. We would find volatility impacting on the retreat of Dorothy from the world in which she was suddenly placed. The Scarecrow would have been distorting reality so that he could cope with the volatile changes swirling around him, and we might find that some of Reich’s “madness” had to do with his attempts to make sense of a volatile post WWII world. He insisted (like Freud) on moving out beyond the confines of the therapist office and this got him in big trouble. Unlike Wilhelm Reich, the Wizard of Oz would have fared well under conditions of volatility, for a smart “huckster” can sell anything if it promises an escape from a world in which change is occurring everywhere: “I need an elixir to save not just my hair but also my sanity!” While Reich was selling his own “elixir” (the orgone accumulator), it was to treat something much more controversial than hair growth. He got into big trouble.

To move beyond this straightforward statement regarding Volatility, we point to two different—and polarizing opposites—regarding how volatility actually operates. Imagine a left and right column positions on a graphic with the meeting ground in the middle between these columns being initially empty—leaving the content of these two columns polarized from one another (Johnson, 1996). The Left Column perspective on volatility would be centered on Commitment in the midst of volatility. This perspective concerns being faithful. We take action in a consistent and sustained manner. In this way, other people can readily understand and predict our behavior.  Dorothy was not consistent and thereby isolated from her neighbors.

What about the Right Column? The focus from this perspective would be on Contingency in the midst of volatility. This perspective concerns being flexible. We keep options open and allow learning to occur in order to modify the actions taken. An appropriate engagement would involve emphasis on the intentions (goals, vision, values, purposes) associated with the issue being addressed.  Which of these intentions should (must) remain constant and which can change depending on the shifting circumstances associated with this issue?  The Wizard operated from a contingent position, as did the Cowardly Lion – though each were flexible primarily on behalf of their own welfare. Reality was flexibly distorted for them so that they might thrive (at the expense of other people).

I introduce the metaphor of anchors at this point to address the issue of continuity and change. Originally introduced by Edgar Schein (2006) in describing the nature of careers, the metaphor of anchors can be expanded to help us make sense of this volatility-based polarity. I expand on this metaphor by noting that there are actually two kinds of anchors. The first type of anchor is the so-called Bottom or Ground Anchor. This is the large and very heavy anchor that most of us non-nautical folks envision. The bottom anchor consists of a shaft with two arms and flukes at one end and a stoke mounted at the other end—or they are slabs of concrete to which a ship is attached when moored.

This type of anchor digs into the floor of the sea once the boat begins to move and provides tension on the chains connecting the anchor to the boat. These anchors are meant to be permanent—just as some intentions aligned with a specific issue are meant to remain stationary and are never to be modified (let alone discarded). Commitment is at the forefront. We find this commitment operating in both the MEGA mind melders and (by contrast) the liberal warriors. This may have something to do with the reason why members of these two groups hate each other some much. It is also a commitment to be found embedded in the original actions taken by the characters of Oz as they journeyed to the Emerald City. We find that this commitment has been lost by these characters as their lives have shattered (along with the lives of the Tin Man’s healers).

The second kind of anchor is called a Sea Anchor (also identified as a drift anchor or drogue). It typically is not as heavy as the bottom anchor and is often shaped like a parachute or cone with the larger end pointing in the direction of the boat’s movement. The sea anchor helps to orient the boat into the wind and slows down (but doesn’t prevent) the boat’s drift. The sea anchor is used when the boat is far away from the shoreline and the sea floor is located many fathoms below. The Sea Anchor contrasts with the ground anchors in that it is intended not to hold a boat in place but rather to align a ship with the wind and slow down its movement in any one direction.

The sea anchor provides flexible anchorage in the midst of shifts in tidal action and wind. This anchor is found among those practitioners in Vandehei’s elite power-consumers and financier shards. Those intentions in an organization that operate like sea anchors. It similarly provides alignment and direction for an organization or community as it shifts gradually with changes in the environment surrounding the presentation of a specific issue. Contingency is at the forefront—as power-consumers and financiers both know. The polarity is addressed by acknowledging benefits inherent in both the ground (commitment) and sea (contingency) anchor. The characters of Oz could have benefit from both a ground and sea anchor in their 21^st Century life. They might have been more in need of gentle guidance provided by Glenda (the good witch) in Oz rather than the treatments offered by Feldenkrais or Reich.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty refers to the lack of predictability, the increasing prospects for surprising, “disruptive” changes that often overwhelm our awareness, understanding and ability to cope with events. There certainly were surprises awaiting Wilhelm Reich when the FBI arrested him and when his machines and books were destroyed. Uncertainly also abounded in the life of the Tin Man. He returned to his recliner chair precisely because he did not anticipate the rejections he faced in the world outside of his apartment. The life of Dorothy had also become saturated with surprise and uncertainty. In her case (as in many others in real life) the uncertainty had much to do with her own ill-considered actions and with the unanticipated outcomes that resulted from these actions.

As in the case of volatility, we can envision a graph with two perspectives regarding uncertainty. In this case, the Left Column perspective on Uncertainty would center on the Assimilation of changes into existing framework. This perspective concerns making sense of and finding meaning in what is occurring in the present reality. By contrast, a Right Column perspective on Uncertainty would center on Accommodation to changes by adjusting or reworking existing framework. This perspective concerns learning from and adapting to what is occurring in the present reality.

The appropriate management of this polarity would involve the creation and maintenance of a learning organization (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Emphasis is placed in such an organization (or community) on the learning that takes place after either a success or failure in addressing issues associated with uncertain conditions. The polarity is addressed by recognizing that learning always involves structures and concepts that already exist (assimilation). We don’t learn if the incoming experience is totally alien to us.  We can feel comfortable with this side of the uncertainty polarity. Residing in one of Vandehei’s 12 shards, we can easily embrace assimilation because the structures and concept are already available within our shard for the process of assimilation to occur.

However, as we bring in and incorporate new information, the existing structures and concepts must change (accommodation). New experiences simply bounce off us (they are dismissed) if we are unwilling to accommodate. A joint assimilation/accommodation process is required. Unfortunately, none of Vandehei’s 12 shards fit well with this process of accommodation–leading Vandehei to share his concern about the splintering of contemporary versions of reality. Each of the shards yields a highly selective entrance of information. This is information that fits well with current assumptions, biases and values associated with this shard. Not much learning occurs.

Our 21^st Century Dorothy would have been well-advised to assume an accommodating perspective. She could have learned from her early mistakes and identify the actual reasons why things were not going well for her. Similarly, Mose Feldenkrais could have taken on the role of learner (accommodator) as he discovered ways to expand on his existing work while retraining his foundational perspective and practices (assimilation). Our Tin Man might similarly have taken time to learn about the real world and adjust his perspectives and practices to this reality—rather than seeking to distort reality (so that he would not have to either learn or adjust). Each of us living in the mid-21^st Century might similarly emerge from the constraints inherent in our preferred shard so that we might take a free breath and look at reality from multiple perspective.

Complexity

Complexity entails the multiplex of forces, the apparently contradictory information flow, the sensitive interdependence of everything we touch, leading to the sense of confusion in which it’s hard to make smart decisions. Children who make use of TikTok and other media will find the complexity of 21^st Century life to be baffling. They are often protected from this complexity by parents who limit their access to media and many of the challenges posed by the outside world. The complexity for them might also be buffered by the feel-good or silly programs they find on their TV set. Sadly, the same strategies are also to be found by those at the other end of the age-spectrum. Grandpas are buffered by “news” stations that offer only one side of the story (often the right-wing side). They also might protect themselves (like their long-matured children) by staying at home and avoiding any dissenting source of information. The Coward Lion would follow suit.

This symbol of courage and ferocity would find it hard to adjust to the complexity of 21^st Century life. The lion would find it much easier and more comfortable to assume power and force his reality on other people rather than recognizing and adjusting to the 21^st Century world’s complexity. He could truly have become a brave and valuable leader if he had sought to lead on behalf of this complexity rather than seeking to block all changes required of this complexity. Perhaps Wilhelm Reich could have retained an appreciation for the complexity he found in the character armament of the patients he was treating rather than “discovering” the simplicity of orgasms, communist doctrine or UFO threats.

We can envision a new graph concerned with complexity. A Left Column perspective on Complexity would center on being Clear-Minded in the midst of confusion. The central concern is sorting out what is most relevant and most easily confirmed while dancing with reality. Dorohty certainly could have benefited from this perspective. The opposing Right Column perspective on Complexity would center on being Open-Minded in the midst of confusion. From this perspective, we would be primarily concerned with recognizing and holding on to the multiple realities that reside in the dance with reality.

Coaching and consulting services, as well as teaching, can be appropriately and effectively used in addressing this polarity through encouragement and even facilitation) of the slow, reflective thinking that is described and advocated by behavioral economists – particularly Daniel Kahneman (2011). Slow thinking incorporates both clarity of mind (identifying and setting aside biases and sloppy heuristics) and open-mindedness (consideration of alternative perspectives, practices and options). In the midst of pervasive anxiety associated with Complexity (and the other aspects of VUCA-Plus), it is critical that thinking and decision-making slow down.

The polarity between clear and open mindedness can be effectively managed with the use of tools offered by Kahneman and his colleagues (Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein, 2021).Our Scarecrow could have benefited from embracing both a clear-minded and open-minded perspective in his teaching. While he wouldn’t have to abandon his unique perspectives on society, he could have offered alternative perspectives and invited his students to view all of these perspective in a critical, thoughtful manner. He could have been teaching his students how to slow-think rather than convincing them of his own point of view.

Ambiguity

Ambiguity concerns the ‘haziness’ in which cause-and-effect are assessed. Causes are hard to attribute. Relativity seems to trump established rules. Conditions of ambiguity weigh heavily on our ability to hold contradictory data and still function and make choices. We are drawn to the Instagrammers, who seek to find clarity by connecting constantly with other people: “maybe together we can remove the haze.” The other way to avoid the haze is to stay indoors—that is stay clear of any news and any challenging information from the “outside world.” We join many other Americans as passive-ists. To quote the nasty Wizard in The Wiz (a remake of the Wizard of Oz): “I don’t want no bad news!”

The Tin Man would embrace a quite different strategy if he were to succeed in 21^st Century reality. He would stay out in the world, learning about philanthropy or some other sector of society and not returning his TV channel. Similarly, his companion, the Cowardly Lion, could attend a civic leadership program (perhaps led by Ronald Heifetz) that offered “no easy answers.” (Heifetz, 1998). An overall willingness on the part of the Tin Man and Cowardly Lion to live with a “hazy” reality could be accompanied by a Left Column perspective on Tolerating this Haziness. The primary concern would center on being patient and willing to remain in “limbo” until such time as the haze clears and actions can be taken.

The Right Column perspective stands in opposition. This perspective would focus on Engaging the haziness. The Scarecrow could learn how to work with philanthropic organizations while the Cowardly Lion could recenter his own political campaign on appropriate and well-planned change. The primary concern in filled the middle region and bringing the left and right column together is establishing a viable “truth” and “reality” upon which one can base and guide actions. Interactions with other people can help both the Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion find a valid truth.

Unlike the Instagrammers, our two Oz companions turn to other people for collective clarification not collective confirmation.  As Ken and Mary Gergen (2004) proclaimed, “truth is only found within community.” More specifically, they would suggest that truth is found in trusting relationships: “constructivism favors a replacement of the individual as the source of meaning with the relationship.” Even more to the point, truth is found in dialogue – and disagreement. There is an insistence that we respect and learn from other people: “one is invited into a posture of curiosity and respect for others.”

Appropriate coaching and consulting services could be requested by the Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion to address the ambiguity-based polarity. Those providing these services can introduce multiple templates for assessing the nature of any challenging issue. One of these templates concerns the identification and analysis of both the immediate issue (the figure) and the context within which this issue is situated (the ground). A second template concerns the distance from which a specific issue is being addressed. It should be examined close up (as an intimate portrait) (proximal perspective) and at a distance (as a broad landscape) (distal perspective).

The third template involves temporal distance. The issue should be examined as it is currently being experienced (the present time) and as it will probably be (or could be) present at some point ahead of us (the future time). The polarity of engagement and tolerance is managed when each of these three templates is applied to the analysis of an important issue. The convening issue can be viewed from multiple perspectives—which allows for both immediate engagement and tolerance of certain immediate circumstances as well as longer term and “bigger picture” engagement and tolerance.

Turbulence

The condition of turbulence exists in our “white water” world (Vaill, 2008). Four patterns of change intermingle in this turbulent environment: rapid change, cyclical change, non-change (stagnation) and chaotic change. MAGA mind melders thrive in this environment. They block up flow by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the turbulent river. Since the turbulence often comes in the form of information about reality, the “everything” often includes mis-information, conspiracy theories and simply a massive set of lies (Weitz and Bergquist, 2024). The barriers are relieving for many people in that the river is now slowed down—it even may no longer flow at all (leaving everything in a condition of stagnation).

Under these conditions of blockage, the MAGA mind melders are able to easily navigate upstream, traveling back to a world of the past. In doing so, members of the MAGA group take command of narratives concerning this past life. They screen and distort so that American life in the past was somehow “great” and can be “great again” under new authoritarian rule. The river will never again be turbulent. Life will once again be pleasant and calm.

It should be noted that the MAGA group is unable to do all of this alone. It takes considerable funding to block the powerfully flowing river and to deliver a distorted but compelling and calming message “from the past.” Enter the elite power-consumers. They provide support for the MEGA mind melders, assuming (with some justification) that turning to the reconstructed “good old days” will mean a return to days when people in positions of wealth were allowed to remain in power—and were often praised for their wealth rather than being restrained in their acquisition of more wealth through new taxes and restrain on the formation of 21^st Century monopolies.

While the MEGA and elite power-consumers wish for and seek to block flow of the turbulent river, the reality is that turbulence (and other contributing conditions of VUCA-Plus) still exist in the 21^st Century world. Furthermore, much of this turbulence began to occur following World War II (and was created in part by this war). Specifically, all four turbulent patterns were present in the world after World War II. Some things were changing rapidly (including attitudes about sexuality), while other things pretty much remained the same (such as attitudes in the United States about communism). There were cycles (such as attitudes about specific psychotherapeutic approaches that came in and out of favor).  Finally, there was absolute chaos.

Many things in life were swirling around the lives of people in charge of American life – leading to communist “witch-hunts” in the 1950s and unrealistic fears of alien invasions on the part of citizens living in the midst of an anxiety-filled cold war. Wilhelm Reich did not do well in this turbulent world. As Jacoby (1983, p.83) noted, Wilhelm Reich was a modern-day enactment of the Old Testament Job. Reich died in prison with both personal and political madness swirling all about him. The dominant energy wasn’t sexual in nature. Reich got it wrong (at least about himself). The dynamic and threatening energy that shattered Wilhelm Reich derived from the newly emerging, combined forces of VUCA-Plus.

A Left Column perspective in a white-water world such as Reich found after World War II would focus on Centering in the midst of these multiple conditions of change. Reich would have needed a “kayak”-based way of navigating in his world. The kayak perspective primarily concerns a search for and finding the core, orienting place that provides one with balance and direction. Agility plays a central role with movement of the double-bladed paddle back and form.

The Right Column perspective focuses on Forethought in the midst of multiple conditions of change. From this perspective, we must “lean” and “learn” forward by allowing for and participating in multiple points of balance and direction in our work and life. For the kayaker, this means looking “downstream” in order to prepare for the upcoming challenges presented by the white-water river they are navigating. What might be found around the next bend in the river and how does my current position on the river prepare me for what might await me around the bend?

Kayakers and leaders do contingency planning when navigating their turbulent environment. Reich could have benefited from looking downstream. He could have recognized that anti-communist feelings were emerging from the cold war. He could have put on his psychoanalytic hat and noted that UFO fears were mostly a symptom of diffuse fears emanating from the cold war. Rather than stoking fears about UFOs, he could have provided an insightful analysis of this fear—much as he had done with character armor.

Reich (and all of us) could address this polarity in an appropriate and effective manner (in keeping with the white-water metaphor) by focusing proximally (up close) on our centering and at the same time focusing distally (at a distance) on what might await us. Specifically, this means using the centering—and the agility—to think outside of the immediate box and to “lean into the future” (Bergquist and Mura, 2011) with forethought.  Otto Scharmer (2019) offers a Theory U way of thinking about and acting in a world of turbulence. He writes about “learning into the future.” Reich might have benefited from reading a book such as Scharmer’s (if it had been available in the late 1940s or early 1950s).

Dorothy could have similarly benefited from Scharmer’s notion of anticipatory learning, Scharmer suggests that we must first seek to change the system as it now exists. For Dorothy, this means cleaning up the cottage in which she now lives as well as cleaning up her own self-destructive attitudes about her neighbors. Scharmer is emulating John Dewey’s suggestion that we only understand something when we give it a kick and observe it’s reaction. Dorothy would have learned a lot about her cottage and her neighbors if she began to change the way she operated in her world.

However, Scharmer goes further than Dewey. He suggests that we must examine and often transform our own way of thinking in the world—which requires both centering and forethought—if this change is to be effective and if we are to learn from this change in preparation for the future. Dorothy would have to learn not only about her cottage and neighbors but also the way in which she is approaching her life—including her inclination to blame fate and other people for the mistakes she has made.

From the perspective of whitewater navigation, this would mean that Dorothy (and all of us) must experiment with different ways of engaging our kayak in our current whitewater world. We particularly try out some changes that might make sense in terms of how the river is likely to operate around the next bend. Will there be more rocks, greater drop in elevation, more bends, etc.?  We take “notes” on how our kayak is behaving in response to changes in our use of the paddle, our way of sitting in the kayak, etc.

Scharmer requires that we not only try out several ways of kayaking, and take notes on these trials, but also explore and embrace new ways of thinking about the kayak and the dynamic way it operates in the river’s turbulence.  These new ways are activated by what we have learned from the current trials. The new ways, in turn, influence other changes we might wish to try out before reaching the next bend in the river. Effective learning, in other words, becomes recursive and directed toward (leaning toward) the future.

None of this learning is easy. Furthermore, it is hard to determine which changes to make and how best to reflect on these changes. We must be patient in reviewing what Dorothy is doing and has doing as someone trying to transform and improve her way of being in the world. We must similarly be patient and understanding of the tentatively changes being made by her Oz companions. These processes are particularly challenging to engage when we are still navigating the current white-water world.

An expert on white water navigation might join us in the kayak (without tipping it over!). They can help us manage the real-time interplay between centering and forethought. It takes a particularly skillful coach or consultant who is herself both centered and forethinking if she is to be of benefit in the management of this dynamic, turbulent polarity. The request should read: “Coach or consultant is needed who is willing to travel—on a white-water river—and is willing to learn in real time alongside their client. A proclivity toward leaning into the future is prerequisite.”

Contradiction

Contradictions exist when we are presented with two or more perspectives or sets of practices that are of equal validity and are equally useful. However, these perspectives and practices differ in significant ways from one another and are not readily reconciled.  The liberal warriors are caught up in the middle of this world of contradictions. On the one hand, they wish to be open-minded and respectful of all opinions (even those held by the opposition). Journalism is supposed to be balanced and “fair-minded.” All views must be reported, however distorted and manipulative.  The liberal warriors are committed to a relativistic perspective—seeking to understand, appreciate, and find “the good” in all viewpoints.

At the same time, they are labeled warriors by Vandehei for good reason and it is not about finding the “good” in all viewpoints.  As identified by William Perry (1970), these warriors have moved beyond a relativistic perspective, to what Perry calls “commitment in relativism.” There should be no tolerance for distorted facts. Yes, there can be alternative opinions—but not alternative facts or alternative realities. Liberal warriors can’t spend their time seeking to appreciate the intentions of those seeking to tear down democracy or block the river of progress into the future.

A similar state of contradiction is to found among those in the emerging majority. As one of my African-American colleagues who is a political activist has shared with me: “I have no interest in seeking to understand and appreciative the viewpoints of my enemies, for I am in the business of defeating and even destroying them!” While there is an interest on the part of the emerging majority to fitting into the world of the white Anglo population (which is becoming a minority), there is also a strong interest in changing the patterns and policies of this population. Contradictions reigns supreme for those who see both the joys and challenges of increased freedom opening up to them. Do we become the equivalent of what many Native-Americans identify as “Apple-Indians” (red on the outside but white on the inside). Contradictions in the inside and outside of those in the emerging majority group can tear out their soul—even more than is the case for the liberal warriors.

Many questions of contradiction emerge in the world in which liberal warriors and those in the emerging majority. Do I seek understanding or victory. Do I appreciate those who oppress if this leads to appeasement? Do I charge forward without respect for the welfare of those I am seeking to annihilate? Am I regressing back to a black/white viewpoint (what Perry identifies as “dualism”) if I remain absolutely committed to my cause? How do I live with two belief systems and two versions of myself residing in my head, heart—and soul?

What about our previous residents of OZ? How do they handle the abundant contradictions existing in their 21^st Century world. The Tin Man is told that he has nothing to contribute to the world—yet he is encouraged to keep trying in the world of philanthropy. His colleague, the Scarecrow is encouraged to be innovative and challenging in his teaching, but is fired when he had become too much “out of the box” in his teaching. Wilhelm Reich is applauded for his liberating views on sexuality and strongly influences the perspectives and practices of other therapists who engage the “energy” of their patients. Yet, he is considered a fraud and forced to leave many countries (notably Norway) where his work is not welcomed.

For one last time, we set up a graphic regarding a major polarity. In this case, the polarity is centered on the very notion of contradiction itself. The Left Column perspective would focus on Appreciating the value of each viewpoint or practice prior to choosing the best one. The primary concern from this perspective is to determine where the greatest truth is to be found and which option is most aligned with one’s personal values. The first step to be taken by Moshe Feldenkrais would be a full appreciation for the unique perspective and practice he has to offer. Though his work might not be gaining much traction at the present time, it is still worth sustained effort.

The Right Column offers an alternative perspective. It concerns Integrating diverse perspective and practices. The primary concern from this perspective is recognition that there is one (and only one) unified reality which can be viewed from multiple, complementary perspectives. The differing perspectives and practices that we encounter are only components of a larger, unified perspective or practice. For Feldenkrais this could mean seeing how his methods and viewpoints regarding mind/body integration aligns with and helps to complement the perspectives and practices found in other helping professions—that might be more wholeheartedly received than the Feldenkrais method. This has in fact occurred, with many physical therapy practices integrating Feldenkrais methods with more traditional physical therapy treatment modes.

These two columns regarding contradiction need not remain in conflict with one another. There is ample opportunity for coming together in the middle ground between the two columns. A tool called Polarity Management was first introduced by Barry Johnson (1996) as a way to address the many contradictions we face in our individual and collective lives. We turn to the perspectives to be offered by Barry Johnson and his polarity management tool.

As Johnson notes, when confronted with two viable options, we tend to linger briefly on the advantages inherent in one of the options. Then we begin to recognize some of the disadvantages associated with this option. We are pulled to the second option. Yet, as we linger on this second option, we discover that this perspective or practice also has its flaws and disadvantages. We are led back to the first policy—and must again face the disadvantages inherent in this first option. The swing has begun from option one advantage to option one disadvantage to option two advantage to option two disadvantage back to option one advantage. We are whipped back and forth. Anxiety increases regarding the swing and failure to find the “right” answer.  The vacillation also increases in both intensity and rapidity. This is what the dynamics of polarization are all about. There is inadequate time and attention given to each option.

Polarity management begins with a reframing of our focus from either/or to Both/And—thus bringing in the Right Column focus on Integration. Both Feldenkrais and Reich can be both unique in their perspective and practices AND aligned in many ways with other existing perspectives and practices. Dorothy can acknowledge that she is both right and wrong in the way she views her world.  Her neighbors are both caring and uncaring about her. Both sides reside in the space between Dorothy’s cottage and the outside world with which Dorothy must contend. She can’t live completely in isolation. The “American Spirit” ultimately requires cooperation and interdependence (the space between her two columns).

The next step in Johnson’s polarity management process is to recognize the value inherent in each perspective or practice—thus bringing in the Left Column focus on Appreciation. Dorothy could get into the business of more fully understanding the reasons why her neighbors reacted to her as they did. Rather than immediately jumping to the problems and barriers associated with each option (which drives us to the second option), we spend time in the appreciative column seeking better understanding of the merits associated with each option. Only then do we consider the “downside” of this option—and only then do we turn to the other option (once again noting its strengths and then it’s downside). Only then does Dorothy acknowledge that her neighbors were not always accurate in their assessment of Dorothy’s needs and resulting actions.

With this preliminary analysis completed, we shift our attention to what happens when we try to maximize the benefits of either option at the expense of the other option. We search for the rich insights and productive guidance to be found in each option, rather than seeking some simple resolution of the contradiction. There is an important cautionary note to be introduced at this point. Barry Johnson warns that we must not try to maximize the appeal of any one side. Dorothy must not focus just on being “nice” to her neighbors. She must retain her commitment to independence. Rather than sacrifice one side, we must carefully optimize the degree to which we are inclined toward one side or the other as well as the duration of our stay with consideration and enactment of this side. How serious are we about focusing on this one side and how long are we going to sustain this focus?

Conclusions

Optimizing is actually important to keep in mind when considering any of the six conditions of VUCA-Plus. We must find a reasonable and perhaps flexible set-point as we act in favor of one side or another in addressing the challenge inherent in each of these conditions. We must lean toward the space that separates both columns. This open middle space allows for movement to the center and reconciliation of these two columns. Finding these acceptable optimum responses and repeatedly redefining them is the key to polarity management.

We must be flexible in both our appreciation and our integration of the diverse and polarizing perspectives to be found with regard to all six VUCA-Plus conditions. Barry Johnson has one more important point to make regarding the management of polarities. He identifies the value inherent in setting up an alarm system as a safeguard against overshooting either side of the polarity. It would be prudent to build in an alarm system that warns us when we may be trying to maximize one side and are on the verge of triggering the negative reactions coming from the other side. As in the case of kayaking in the midst of turbulence, we must seek both balance and forethought in addressing the challenges of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, turbulence and contradiction.

The Tin Man, Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion must manage the polarities in their own 21^st Century life if they are to be productive members of their society. They no longer have Dorothy to serve but do have equally as deserving members of their own community to serve with wisdom, heart and bravery.  The Wizard might join them in this endeavor. As for Dorothy, Wilhelm and Mosie, there are personal challenges to face as they seek to navigate a world that is quite different from the 1930s of Oz and North America. For these three actors (one fictional and two real), there are the challenges of finding a world that is real rather than being a figment of their own imagination and ambition. None of them are in their own Kansas anymore. Dorothy, Wilhelm and Moise also face the even greater challenge of learning and leaning into their future. They each hold the opportunity to help create a new world that builds on and further enhances benefits to be found and appreciated in their current world.

_______________________________

References

Argyris, Chris and Donald Schon (1978) Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bellah, Robert and Associates (1985) Habits of the Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bergquist, William (2020) “Leadership and Anxiety: Containment and Metabolism I: Anxiety in a VUCA Plus Environment. Library of Professional Psychology. Link:  https://psychology.edu/library/leadership-and-anxiety-containment-and-metabolism-i-anxiety-in-a-vuca-plus-environment/

Bergquist, William (2022) The VUCA Plus Challenges. Library of Professional Coaching.   Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/managing-change/the-vuca-plus-challenges/

Bergquist, William (2023a) Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart I: The Nature of Energy and Anxiety. The Library of Professional Coaching. Link: Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart I: The Nature of Energy and Anxiety | Library of Professional Coaching

Bergquist, William (2023b) Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart II: Reich’s and Feldenkrais’s Preparation for Treatment. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart II: Reich’s and Feldenkrais’s Preparation for Treatment | Library of Professional Coaching.

Bergquist, William (2023c) Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart III. Reich’s and Feldenkrais’s Treatment. Library of Professional Coaching. Link:  Oiling the Tin Man’s Armor and Healing His Heart III: Reich’s and Feldenkrais’s Treatment | Library of Professional Coaching

Bergquist, William and Kevin Weitz (2022) The Authoritarian Personality: Preliminary Perspectives and Studies, Library of Psychology. Link: https://library.psychology.edu/the-authoritarian-personality-i-preliminary-perspectives-and-studies/

Bergquist, William and Kevin Weitz (2023a) The Authoritarian Personality: Contemporary Appraisals and Implications for the Crisis of Expertise. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/interpersonal-relationships-foundations/the-authoritarian-personality-contemporary-appraisals-and-implications-for-the-crisis-of-expertise/

Bergquist, William and Kevin Weitz (2023b). The Life of Facts I: Their Nature and Construction. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/decison-making-and-problem-solving/the-life-of-facts-i-their-nature-and-construction/18/

Gergen, Kenneth and Mary Gergen (2004) Social Construction: Entering the Dialogue. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Taos Institute Publications.

Heifetz, Ronald (1998) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jacoby, Russell (1983) The Repression of Psychoanalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, Barry (1996) Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. HRD Press.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, Daniel, Oliver Sibony and Cass R. Sunstein (2021) Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Miller, John and Scott Page (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Newport, Cal (2016) Deep Work. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Perry, William (1970) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Reich, Wilhelm (1980) Character Armor. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Sapolsky, Robert (2004) Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers [3rd Ed.] New York: Holt.

Scharmer, Otto. (2009) Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Schein, Edgar (2006) Career Anchors. 3rd Ed. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Seligman, Martin (1992) Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death, New York: W. H. Freeman.

Slater, Philip (1970/1976) The Pursuit of Loneliness. Boston: Beacon.

Stoycheva, Valentina (2022) The Great Exhaustion: Long-Lasting Pandemic Effects, Psychology Today, November.

Vaill, Peter (2008) Managing as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vandehei, Jim (2024) Shards of Glass: Inside Media’s 12 Splintering Realities. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/shards-of-glass-inside-media-s-12-splintering-realities/ar-BB1ktWlO

Weitz, Kevin and William Bergquist (2021) A Crisis of Expertise I: Setting the Stage. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/decision-making-and-problem-solving/a-crisis-of-expertise-i-setting-the-stage/

Weitz, Kevin and William Bergquist (2022a) How Lies and Misinformation Undermine Trust in Experts and Scientific Facts, Library of Professional Coaching. Link:https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/communication/how-lies-and-misinformation-undermine-trust-in-experts-leaders-and-scientific-facts/

Weitz, Keven and William Bergquist (2022b) Believing or Disbelieving Leaders and Experts: The Dangerous Influence of Conspiracy Theories. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/managing-stress-and-challenges/believing-or-disbelieving-leaders-and-experts-the-dangerous-influence-of-conspiracy-theories/

Weitz, Keven and William Bergquist (2022c) The Crisis of Expertise II: Blind Spots and the Role of Coaching. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: A Crisis of Expertise II: Blind Spots and the Role of Coaching | Library of Professional Coaching

Weitz, Keven and William Bergquist (2023) The Crisis of Expertise III: What You Believe and Disbelieve May Kill You. Library of Professional Coaching. Link: https://libraryofprofessionalcoaching.com/concepts/decison-making-and-problem-solving/the-crisis-of-expertise-iii-what-you-believe-and-disbelieve-may-kill-you/

Weitz, Kevin and William Bergquist (2024) The Crises of Expertise and Belief. Harpswell, ME: Professional Psychology Press. https://psychology.edu/product/the-crises-of-expertise-and-belief/