Imagining the end of Binaryism – part 1.

What do I mean by Binarism?

Binaryism is the unquestioned ubiquity of binary opposition in our social norms. It has long been killing us. It is killing us and preventing our coming together to work out how best to deal with the human-made changes to our atmosphere that will finish us off. I want to encourage thinking that gets us out of this deadly mental fixation.

Binary opposition is a simple concept worked on in the 20th Century by the likes of Levi Strauss, Saussure, and Derrida. Up/ Down, Left/ Right, High/ Low, and Right/ Wrong are primary examples. It has long been how in/out thinking has resulted in tribal cohesion and a siege mentality – Us against them. It is the basis of Western politics and the Legal system, which has progressively been foisted upon the world. Binaryism is the word I use to denote the unthinking acceptance of a very dangerous thing – it being ‘the way it is’.

In smaller societies like city-states, monarchies, and nations, where there has been God or gods at the top of a hierarchy, these societies could coalesce around their version of the God story. Binaryism was the cohesive force that bound people. It has the same effect even in small groups, and teams here. Binaryism as an ‘us against’, shared understanding, identity, and purpose has led to the inevitability of win and loss. When the kinetic murder of disagreement was not such that it threatened us at a species level, this was OK on the whole.

Now we are where we are. Binaryism has become a multi-level monster facilitated by the internet, fuelled by fear and distrust. Many fractured positions on myriad issues are sucked into the orbits of Binary Opposition Politics. One side against the other. Winning is embedded in the psyche of all involved; good and bad are prescribed for each side. Heroes are put forward, and strength and might are right.

The problem now is that the Binaryism of the internet age has no regard for societal cohesion, and the artificiality of nation-states and race has become exposed. This is actually not new or recent. It really got going in the West with Protestantism and the proliferation of the ability to print written materials. This was when a massive warning about Binaryism appeared in the West, which tumbled on oblivious. Factions and fractionating of societies, pitting economically bound populations, against each other.

We live in the globalised age, with a ‘just-in-time’ and very delicate supply system upon which most people depend. We all live on the same surface on the Earth and are subject to the effects of the same climactic conditions. Society is now the entire globe.

Towards a solution

Binary Opposition, where either one ‘side’ wins or is dominant, is no way to treat our modern situation. The climate emergency is universal (global), as is our ability to have the food and water required. Added to this is our ability to obliterate human existence with the weaponry we possess. Some people will always have more luxury or hardship than others; the answer is not the right-wing imagination’s view of ‘communism’. It is, however, a version of egalitarianism that allows for trade, commerce, and wealth creation.

We must find a way of making and enacting policy which is based upon rationality and evidence rather than political ideology. We must abandon old ideas about good and bad from an assumed, imaginary morality.

Freedom is extremely important in all this, but it must mean, as far as possible, the ability to weigh options and to meaningfully express the outcome. Freedom does not equate to either individuality and, internet echo-chamber ranting or state control. We need a system for deciding things that weakens the inclination toward party affiliation and the subsequent rabbit hole entrenchment of curated algorithmic and now AI.

We need a way to progressively alienate policy and action from binary opposition.

Some political parties espouse this kind of approach, but they’re political parties, so…

We need a way to provide education that is not subject to political or religious idealism but does not preach ‘science is all’. We need the arts and humanities, music, trade skills, and also science. We need philosophy.

We need to be able to move to a system whereby issues are highlighted that need attention and solutions proposed, and we need these proposals to become, as far as possible, free from political and religious spin and hyperbole and legal and scientific sophistry and rhetoric. We don’t need, as I have long thought, a political middle ground. We need to dismantle binary politics.

The usual arguments against…

The usual response to this kind of thinking elicits such outbursts as “it’s going against human nature”, and “Well, go on then, what’s your idea to solve it then?”. These are different forms of ‘the way it is’ fallacy’. We don’t have the luxury of the world for human habitation that we used to when we weren’t all going to die one way or another. Because something is radically different from how ‘things work around here’ doesn’t mean it’s unworkable.

A way to present information about issues that need to be addressed, increasingly without Nationhood or ideology - political (binary political) or religion, is required. A way for each person to have a say on these issues or for them to be decided upon without the binary overlays we currently have is required. This way MUST have rapid feedback loops built in, too, so we can see the progress and results and adjust as needed. This does not preclude anyone from having their own tribal inclinations on any matter, but it can mean that one or other political entity doesn’t own sets of thinking.

“it’ll never happen” doesn’t mean we should not discuss how it can and must.

So, this is Part 1. I’m looking forward to ideas and comments.