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 a pandemic policy? I believe the answer is “yes”. Along with systemic perspectives and slow thinking, polarity management might provide important guidance in the convening of a forum for constructive dialogue.
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 again, 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 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.”
I 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.
