Quantum Drummer

Prior to offering potential solutions that can be used to eliminate or minimize polarization, I would like to provide a summary of the main sources of polarization in the human psyche that have been discussed so far.

The main elements that generate polarization have been:

Left Hemisphere domination in Western Cultures – Iain McGilchrist

Dualism and Differentiation Paradigm

Fragmentation – David Bohm

Coincidentia Oppositorum, Energetic Structure of the Psyche, Polar Tension – C.G. Jung

Need for Power, Fear – Nietzsche

Complex and Shadow Influences on the Psyche (Ego, Inflation, Anima/Animus) – C.G. Jung

Summarizing these elements we can determine that there are two major sources that can be identified here: The first is the dualist paradigm that has been present mainly in the Western Cultures due to the domination of the left hemisphere of the brain in individuals. This has generated a behavior of competition, individuality, fragmentation, and separation in the people. While many researchers have worked on these issues, I will summarize this first set of sources as the brain’s left hemisphere influence as analyzed by Iain McGilchrist.

The second major element is the way that the human psyche can be unbalanced, based on the influence of complexes, lack of integration of the shadow, unhealthy influence of archetypes on the personality, and psychical issues that can result from an unbalanced activity of the Anima or Animus in the individual’s behavior. Also, many psychologists and researchers have discussed and approached this second group of sources, but I will summarize it as the issues resulted from an unbalanced condition of the human psyche as per the analysis of C. G. Jung.

In addition to McGilchrist’s and Jung’s works on polarization, in recent times, Kirk Schneider has performed important studies, and published on the topic.

K.J. Schneider’s Analysis on Polarization

Given the recent increase in polarization in the world, psychologist Kirk Schneider has published a couple of books providing detailed analysis on the sources of polarization, as well as offering potential solutions. On his book: The Polarized Mind: Why It’s Killing Us and What We Can do About it (2013), Schneider presents the following ideas:

In regards to the swings in the history of the United States between extremes of “conservatism and liberalism, or rigidity and permissiveness,” the usual explanation is that these swings occur due to cultural, political and biological reasons, starting from the founders of the country “swinging away” from the British Empire due to political and religious oppression. Schneider quotes the writings of Schlesinger (1986) to describe these swings as follows:

“The roots of … cyclical self-sufficiency doubtless lie deep in the natural life of humanity. There is a cyclical pattern in organic nature – in the tides, in the seasons, in the night and day, in the systole and diastole of the human heart … People can never be fulfilled for long either in the public or in the private sector. We try one, then the other, and frustration compels a change of course. Moreover, however effective a particular course may be in meeting one set of troubles, it generally falters and fails when new troubles arise.”

With this thesis, Schlesinger and Schneider are suggesting that the individuals and communities behave naturally on a cyclical pattern, similarly to all other natural cycles in the world, and after some time of trying one particular behavior, it is normal for humans to want to try something different, even if the previous behavior is not necessarily failing. Under this scenario, we could assume that when communities or countries have been on a consistent condition for a long time, no matter how good this is, there is some level of “boredom” in the community that results in searching for a new approach, even if this approach could bring new problems. Given the recent political and social polarization in the United States, and trying to explain the sources of such a radical divide, there have been some comments by historians and social scientists that indicate that one potential source can be that given the relatively long period of progress, the society in the US has reached a level of “boredom” that makes it look for different ways, even if these new ways generate conflict. It has also been suggested that it would be a sad situation if the democratic system that has given the US a long period of wealth and progress could be lost just because people find themselves bored, and they prefer to look for “something different.” It would be indeed a sad situation if this is the case.

Under the biological reasons provided by Schneider as sources of polarization of individuals, he mentions the “human condition” as the potential root, in which people gets to question their existence, and given the influences of the environment results in problems such as depression, anorexia, obsessive-compulsiveness, and other psychological factors that evolve into societal problems of criminality, drug abuse, etc. When these issues generate and grow in communities, their cycle expands into increased depersonalization, domestic violence, abuse, etc. which evolve into issues of child neglect, abandonment, humiliation, shaming, bullying and many other behaviors that affect particularly the younger generations, and show up as school shootings, suicide outbreaks, fanaticism, and disintegration of societal values. Schneider defines how when psychosocial extremes are reached, the level of anxiety about existence itself grows. The conditions of catastrophic thinking, particularly in young individuals, are a result of the increase in traumatized experiences, which can get to extremes of death anxieties, and develop secondary fears such as humiliation, or the fear of becoming insignificant. As it has been mentioned before, personal significance plays a major role in the motivation of individuals to commit terrorist acts.

Some additional sources of polarization, found in the history of humanity, are identified by Schneider (2013), the most common being the following:

-The formation of religious dogma

-Absolutism generating dehumanization, slaughter of dissidents and humiliation of outsiders

-Accumulation and preservation of power: imperial oligarchies, the church, governments, the academy

-The sovereignty and absolute authority, at the family levels (the father) and community levels (dictator/king)

-Bigotries about people that deviate from the “norm”

-Ego based polarization: The “glamour” of wealth, the “glory” of war, the “greatness” of one’s religion, nationality, race, or even “our” sports team.

Another important element identified by Schneider as a source of polarization is what he defines as “groundlessness”, which is a side effect of fear. He explains the following:

“Polarization begins with fear, and extreme polarization begins with extreme fear. Extreme fear, depth research has revealed, associates not just with loss of values or even loss of life; but with complete loss of orientation – In a word, groundlessness. The sense of groundlessness, in turn, leads to great defensive maneuvers to regain ground, or significance – and not just ordinary ground or significance but enormous height (glory) to defy even a hint of the former vulnerability. Civilizations, like individuals, will do all they can to avoid associations to their helplessness before the cosmos, and much of what they do – generally at their own and others’ peril – is to create the illusion that they are equal to the cosmos…”

This description of the concept of groundlessness seems very applicable to the extremist groups that currently exist in the world, such as radical religious cults, nationalist and supremacist groups, militias, and the social phenomena known as “Q-Anon”.

Symbols of polarization that have appeared in societies through history include:

-Pretentions of Omnipotence: Dramatic insignias, flashy military colors, blazing banners, frenzied war parades, towering statues, temples, palaces

-Pretend turf ownership and protection by gangs

-Resentment of real or perceived threats

– Belief of having the ability to control the most unruly elements of the environment

-Over confidence evolving into a “vast magical technocracy designed to manipulate both the external world and the gods themselves.”

-The myth of the “survival of the fittest.” To illustrate this element, Schneider quotes a paragraph from Napoleon Bonaparte, on a letter written to his brother:

“Among so many conflicting ideas and so many different perspectives, the honest man is confused and distressed and the skeptic becomes wicked … Since one must take sides, one might as well choose the side that is victorious, the side which devastates, loots and burns. Considering the alternative, it is better to eat than to be eaten.”

This short paragraph demonstrates several important concepts. First of all, the description of how the normal individual lives on a constant paradox of different perspectives and ideas, and being unable to live in the paradox and balance the opposite views, the individual needs to take sides. If sides are to be chosen, it makes only sense that the winning side is chosen, and since the only options available are to win (eat) or lose (to be eaten), the smart individual should choose to win. Winning is the only option, and the losers are the dumb ones. Even if winning means to perform actions that could be against human values, such as killing, looting, the only right choice is to take the winning side. No thought is given to the possibility of having an option in which both sides remain, survive and thrive, there must be only one winner and one loser. This condition has been perpetuated through the history of humanity under the following premises: We must always take sides, winning is the only choice, and there is no room for losers.

Looking at the current conditions of the world, it is clear that we live in a time of extreme polarization, and the potential for conflict at a large scale is growing every day. The United States is one of the main examples of the risk of major conflict in its society, but polarization exists in almost all the countries in the world. The information that we have learned about the sources of polarization and the lessons learned throughout the history of the world must help us now to identify potential solutions. There is still opportunity to generate actions that can positively impact individuals, communities and societies and search for a future with more collaboration, connection and growth for all humans. In the following chapters I will be proposing some of the potential actions to reduced polarization and improve life conditions in general.