As Johnson notes, we tend to linger briefly on the advantages inherent in one option when confronted with two viable polarizing 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 has 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. Inadequate time and attention are devoted to each option.
Polarity management begins with reframing our focus from Either/Or to Both/And—thus bringing in the Right-Column focus on Integration. We imagine the integration, much as Jungians imagine a unifying symbol to bring about an integration of opposing psychic forces and entities. The next step is to recognize the value inherent in each perspective or practice—thus bringing an Appreciative focus to the Left-Column. 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 a 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 its downside). Each reframing and appreciative process requires imagination in Johnson’s management of polarity.
The Jungians also have something to say about the unification of polarities. I turn once again to Van Eenwyk (1997, P. 39), “. . . the psyche is polaristic, . . . energy is generated by tensions of opposites, and . . . there is an ongoing oscillation, or jumping back and forth”, much as Barry Johnson suggests. Van Eenwyk suggests that this intra-psychic polarity exists between actuality and potential. Furthermore, in the world of Jungian psychology (Van Eenwyk, 1997, p. 39):
“Synchronic dynamics are essentially oscillatory dynamics. Furthermore, . . . psychological development is a function primarily of the resolution of tensions (emphasizing the ego’s awareness), corresponds with one of the more intriguing hypotheses about chaotic dynamics, that of symmetry-building bifurcations, whereby chaotic dynamics actually generate a higher order result coming out than existed going in.”
Following this rather abstract statement about Jungian synchronicity, Van Eenwyk (1997, p. 39) offers a very tangible example of polarity unification:
“. . . [L]ittle stuffed animals [as transitional objects] . . . play an even more important role than we thought. For they not only help children to connect with others, they also give them a feeling for what those connections are like. Eventually, children relinquish their little companions for their flesh and blood friends. They learn to let go of the more familiar and to reach out to the less familiar. Nothing is more critical to the development of their egos.”
While transitional objects, such as the stuffed animal, lessen the chaos of transitions, they do not eradicate it. They just make the transition a little more manageable. In essence, the transitional object is a personal and quite tangible unifying symbol. Applying Barry Johnson’s perspective, we might suggest that the stuffed animal helps to bring about the child’s management of a polarity between deep, nostalgic yearning for the past and genuine, excitement about the emerging future. The stuffed animal reminds the child of their past and reassures them that the past will always remain with them. However, the stuffed animal is being brought with the child into their future, suggesting that the future need not be too scary.
