The country and the world are at the juncture of a new era, according to Thomas Friedman. He has written in a recent New York Times op-ed that he favors describing the new non-binary era as, the “Polycene.” It was coined by his friend, Craig Mundie, the former head of research and strategy at Microsoft. Friedman observes that living in a binary world, with only choices of either/or, is becoming a pattern of the past. It would seem that much of the political and social stress we are experiencing today may be the result of choosing winners and losers in a new non-binary polycene era.
I have come to recognize that I, myself, have sometimes limited myself to binary reasoning to express my opinion. I introduce two possibilities and set up one to be the best option. While this method may explain my opinion, it also may leave out some of you readers, who feel more comfortable choosing the opposite option in the binary equation. Choosing a side results in two camps at odds with each other. They become losers or winners.
People who see themselves as winners believe the binary approach to disputes is the only tried and true way. For example, the Heritage Foundation insists on a binary world consistent with either/or choices. Its Project 2025 insists that sexuality is a binary reality. Therefore, the project seeks to maintain binary thinking by “deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitivity…”
This effort is consistent with the view that people can be only a man or a woman. There is no compromise. They fear any suggestion that there is such a thing as nonbinary personhood. Also, it’s possible they may fear that their own personhood might be perceived differently than simply being a man or woman. Finally, claiming to be on the “right” side of a binary issue gives them power and influence.
While Project 2025 reasons that the world has been created binary, Friedman observes the polycene era, with its recognition of many iterations of a condition or situation, requires nonbinary reasoning that leaves binary thinking wanting. This alternative seeks a synthesis of all the approaches to an issue, that may reveal a truth or new understanding. Synthesis is not compromise. It is an inclusive understanding derived from the contributions of many points of view.
An example of expanding from either/or to both/and is the discussion of gun control in a meeting I attended. The framework for the discussion was binary: either guns are acceptable in society or they are unacceptable. Unable to agree on either point of view, the discussion shifted to seeking compromise. Would it be acceptable to restrict gun possession or use background checks before sales of guns? Would it be okay to restrict some gun models? However, the group could not reach a compromise.
Then the group began to speak of all the iterations around the issue of guns in America. For example, safety, recreation, hunting, possible victims, mental illness, terrorists, people with special needs, conspiracy theorists and more. Then we realized that much of the discussion included elements of fear. Some owned guns for safety from shooters. Others fear what guns can do. Some fear possible gun accidents. Some of those with suicidal ideation fear having access to a gun. It became logical that the problem is not guns or no guns, but fear: fear of guns, fear to be without a gun, fear of gun possessors, fear to declare gun free zones, fear of different cultures, different ethnic origins and even political parties. Neither binary thinking nor compromise can cover this multiple of issues. The only possible solution is to seek a synthesis that includes the commonality of fear.
The complexity of issues in this polycene era are legion. The days of either/or solutions are no longer enough. Compromises are unsatisfactory, only leading to more obstinate binary situations. A diverse population with diverse values, political loyalties, and social commitments calls for solving disputes through the synthesis of their many points of view on an issue. In the polycene era, win/lose will give way to win/win — no one left out or left behind.
John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds
Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.