In seeking to metabolize our anxiety, we not only identify evil forces and figures, but also seek to find safe refuge from this evil, by looking to a leader who can fight against or flee from this evil. This leader will offer simple ways in which we can reduce our anxiety (Bergquist, 2020a). These ways often include not only identifying the enemy of evil who “caused” the underlying problem and/or blocked its solution, but also providing a simple portrayal of the problem itself. Such has been the case with “deliberations” regarding herd immunity.
As Daniel Kahneman (2013) and other behavioral economists have noted, we are likely to engage in “fast thinking” when confronting immediate, anxiety-filled challenges. The “slow thinking” that is required to sort through the VUCA-Plus labyrinth of COVID-19 infections and immunity was not widely engaged in the United States during 2020. USA citizens were not alone. Anxiety-provoked regression in thought, feelings and actions pervaded the world. Authoritarianism emerged and reigned supreme in many societies. Leaders were being obeyed who had no business being in this role. Stupidity filled the cracks and crevices of COVID-19 deliberations.
We know now that an effective policy should include both NPI and carefully planned testing, tracing and inoculations. We must account for the speed at which a virus spreads, as well as for inevitable delays in the flow of both resources and information. We must recognize that a virus can begin in the home of a fishmonger or spread in a city like Philadelphia. Butterflies are everywhere when it comes to pandemics. We also know that all these matters are contentious and subject to conflict-filled deliberation. Truth and reality can be quite elusive. It is easy to regress individually and collectively when anxiety is saturating our thoughts and actions. As I have already mentioned, we have tools that can aide our slow, systemic analysis of pandemic problems—despite the challenges we face in confronting these problems. I am about to introduce a process that can help us do a better job in making balanced decisions based on this analysis.
Polarity Management
We must leave the confines of Cambridge Massachusetts so that I might introduce a new perspective on the best way to learn from the COVID-19 crisis of 2020 and to make decisions when faced with future pandemic crises. Specifically, I turn to the work of Barry Johnson (1996), the “dean” of 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.
