Anti-dichotomy (part 2 of 2)

In the previous post, I tried out my current thinking about a global political and governmental landscape in which three models operate. Part of the point was simply to start setting up this model so I can use it to analyze contemporary social, economic and political systems.  But part of what interests me is how this deviates from prevailing analytical models that depend on dichotomous conceptual structures. 

We tend to explain things in terms of spectrums between one pole and another. If you want to increase the dimensions, you move to a pair of one-dimensional spectrums that produce 2x2 models. With my tri-polar model, you could decide it is begging for a fourth option to be complete. Take the three models (neo-liberalism, traditional authoritarianism, state capitalism) and add social democracy. This could be worked into a grid, with the level of democracy on one axis and level of collectivism on the other

Neo-liberalism: high democracy, low collectivism

Authoritarianism: low democracy, low collectivism

State capitalism: low democracy, high collectivism

Democratic socialism: high democracy, high collectivism

The thing is, this really doesn't hold water.  Authoritarianism can have high collectivism for the right people.  The collectivism of state capitalism is of a different nature than something that might be called socialism. Rating them both high on collectivism suggests they share a characteristic, where in fact they have different characteristics that might be described with the same word.  

The grid only makes sense as an artificial symmetry.   

Analytical habits gravitate to spectrums, bi-polar models, and grids.  All of which violate the complexity of experience. At any given time, a few different models will be at play in the field. The task is to look at what is there and make sense of what you find.  Dichotomous thinking leads you too quickly to reductions of complexity. 

The pitfalls of dichotomous thinking reminds me of the way my friend David Dark takes up charged words that are part of an agonistic pair. He will subvert a term like conservative (or evangelical) by redefining it and connecting it with meanings and associations that we conventionally think of as its opposite.  This used to aggravate me.  My thinking: We need to be able to give things names that we can stick with.  And we are involved in a struggle that is important, and we need to be able to line up on the side of what is right.  As Florence Reese would ask, Which side are you on?    

Today it occurs to me that David was engaging in an act of discursive sabotage which had the effect of denying all combatants use of the asset or weapon.  What happens then? They need to reconsider how they relate to each other on the field, and maybe they will find that discursive violence doesn't work as well with the new terms.  It opens up a moment to consider the possibility of discursive compassion--feeling together.  The players might not take up the option, but the rupture makes something possible.