Social reformers would soon feel—or at least should feel—disappointed. They might even feel deeply ashamed or wounded, given the impersonal, bureaucratic and even “inhumane” decisions being made. If we are religious and view ourselves as culpable, then we might ask our deity for forgiveness. Other members of our society would be inclined to launch a vitriolic attack against those who enacted this grotesque policy. As a result, we are likely to return to a focus on distinctive personal rights—though only after many stone cities have been built and local neighborhoods destroyed in favor of “urban renewal.” We swing back and forth, leaving behind the debris of disrupted lives and disillusioned citizenry. True freedom is nowhere to be found.
Barry Johnson warns that we must not try to maximize the appeal of any one side; rather 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? Under the best of conditions, we are living with what Erich Fromm describes as a dynamic and highly productive tension. Can we live with and in this tension?
Optimizing also means that we must find a reasonable and perhaps flexible set-point as we act in favor of one side or another. Finding these acceptable optimum responses and repeatedly redefining them is the key to polarity management. This strategy is aligned with the suggestion made by many thoughtful social commentators that a balance must be struck and integration found regarding personal rights and collective responsibilities (e.g. Lodge, 1995).
The fundamental recommendation to be made in managing this particular polarity is to remain in the positive domain of each perspective long enough to identify all (or at least most) of the key benefits and potential actions to be taken that maximize these benefits. Thinking needs to slow down and a systemic analysis must be engaged. Time should be devoted to and attention directed (in a slow and systemic manner) toward identification of potential ways in which the two perspectives can be brought together on behalf of an integrated response to the challenges of 21st Century life. Consideration and compassion potentially join hands.
This polarity management recommendation is not easily enacted—especially when the stakes are high (as they certainly are regarding many contemporary societal issues). As Johnson and others engaged in polarity management have noted, effective management of polarities requires a constant process of vigilance, negotiation, and adjustments. The second option regarding collective responsibility seems to be aligned with this recommendation of dynamic vigilance. Caring public policy can easily become nothing more than numbers and the imposition of clumsy regulations.
