I propose that Freud was correct in his observation that human beings tend to differentiate themselves from other people with whom they are related as a result of minor differences. We are living in a world where it seems that relationships can’t exist among people who differ from one another with regard to a range of issues—from artistic taste to political perspectives. We demonize those who disagree with us and polarize our society. While these differences might not be very great, the gulf is great. Little gets done. Aggressive thoughts—and actions—arise. Relationships with our friends are challenged. Even relationships with other members of our family are splintered when this gulf exists. Conversation ceases, conflicts remain unresolved, problems remain unsolved, and decisions are never made. The entire pyramid of effective relationships and collective empowerment crumbles. The pyramid’s foundational building blocks of communication, conflict-management, problem-solving, and decision-making cannot bear the weight of this aggressive narcissism (Bergquist, 2003).
Freud might have been right about the tendency of human beings to differentiate themselves from other people based on minor differences; however, was he also correct in proposing that this narcissism is somehow built into the human psyche? Are there factors that exist out there in the world that reinforce and amplify the space between people? I would suggest that there are societal “culprits” who make matters worse. What might these culprits be and how do they make the gulf even greater? In this essay, I identify some of these culprits, engaging a specific model of mid-21st Century challenges–called “VUCA-Plus”.
I don’t want to offer only this negative perspective regarding relationships that are shattered by minor differences. I wish to counter with a strong, positive perspective by introducing three examples of relationships that have been sustained (even enriched) in the midst of differences. What have we learned from the exemplars? In this essay, I introduce one of these three exemplars (the Bach Family) and turn to the second and third example in two companion essays. I offer a fourth essay in this series, where I identify some of the specific gulfs that now exist in mid-21st Century life and explore structures, processes and attitudes that encourage collaboration in the midst of major differences in the perspectives, values and actions taken by specific, siloed factions in our society.
The Culprits of Division
Obviously, there are many reasons for the polarization that is now taking place and contributors to the gulf are diverse and multiple in number. However, I propose that there are six specific polarizing challenges that mid-21st Century citizens face as they live and work in their own communities and nations. While the specific nature of these challenges is unique to each person and to each society in our world, they can be grouped as the challenge of volatility (U), uncertainty (U), complexity (C) and ambiguity (A). I would add to these four challenges (commonly labeled “VUCA”) the equally as challenging conditions of turbulence and contradiction that we all encounter every day (Bergquist, 2020).
Taken together, these challenging conditions of VUCA-Plus contribute in a major way to mid-21st Century polarization and a pervasive intolerance of differences. Essentially, the culprit is profound and pervasive anxiety (often called “angst”) associated with the multiple VUCA-Plus conditions (Bergquist, 2020). We know that angst tends to produce what psychologists call “regression” in the functioning of cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) processes. Put simply, we turn back the clock of our personal development when we are anxious. We think and feel like we did when young, impressionable and inexperienced. William Perry (1970), a noted developmental psychologist and counsellor, proposes that we begin to perceive and operate in a world that is Dualistic. There is good and bad, right and wrong, correct and incorrect. There is no grey.
