Compromise. It’s a
dirty word to many of those whose belief systems place them toward the polar
ends of the ideological spectrum, whether the ideology is religious, political
or philosophical. And, generally speaking, the closer one’s position is to
either extreme of the spectrum, the stronger is one’s aversion to compromise.
One characteristic
of extremism is the belief than one’s own convictions are absolute, and there
are no other valid perspectives; therefore, the disdain for compromise is
justified. To compromise is to dilute truth. I have long maintained that the
only absolute quality of such a position is the absolute arrogance required to
maintain it.
In his 2002 Nobel
speech in Oslo, Jimmy Carter said, “The present era is a challenging and
disturbing time for those whose lives are shaped by religious faith based on
kindness toward each other.” In an interview with Christianity Today, he explained:
“There is a remarkable trend toward
fundamentalism in all religions—including the different denominations of
Christianity as well as Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam. Increasingly, true
believers are inclined to begin a process of deciding: ‘Since I am aligned with
God, I am superior, and my beliefs should prevail, and anyone who disagrees
with me is inherently wrong,’ and the next step is ‘inherently inferior.’ The
ultimate step is ‘subhuman,’ and then their lives are not significant.”[1]
Carter points out
the disturbing trend toward linking religious fundamentalism and political ideologies.
The result is an uncompromising rigidity and a refusal to negotiate.
Limited as we are
by the clay of which we are made, we humans are incapable of comprehending
truth absolutely (even though I believe there is absolute truth, and that it is
most nearly manifested in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.) This is old hat to
those who know me. It’s a central theme of my own identity and ideology. St.
Paul wrote, “Now we see as if through a flawed pane of glass” (I Corinthians
13:12 ~ my paraphrase). I have not yet attained the certitude necessary to
contradict St. Paul.
In his Nobel Prize
offering, Profiles in Courage, John
F. Kennedy wrote,
“It is compromise that prevents each set of reformers—the wets
and the drys, the one-worlders and the isolationists, the vivisectionists and
the anti-vivisecionists—from crushing the group on the extreme opposite end of
the political spectrum. The fanatics and extremists, and even those
conscientiously devoted to hard and fast principles are always disappointed at
the failure of their governments to rush to implement all of their principles
and to denounce those of their opponents. But the legislator has some
responsibility to conciliate those opposing forces within his state and party
and to represent them in the larger clash of interests on the national level;
and he alone knows that there are few if any issues where all the truth and all
the right and all the angels are on one side.”[2]
The reality of
serving the public is that the public will present contradicting, even
conflicting demands. For example, Kennedy recalls consecutive constituent
conferences, the first of which was with some businessmen who were asking him
to affect the removal of a federal agency that was competing with their
businesses, and the second of which was with employees of that federal agency,
who were seeking his influence to protect their jobs. Kennedy used this example
to illustrate his case for the necessity of compromise.
Given my
background in evangelical Christianity, I, too, tend to steer away from
compromise whenever possible; however, such is not a rigid principle or rule
for me. As in the issue of spanking children, it’s not so much that I oppose it
(although I do, for the reason immediately following), as that I find much more
effective ways of disciplining children. Likewise, in many cases, perhaps in
most cases of conflict, I think there is a better solution than compromise. In
compromise, one side, or all sides, give up something in order to obtain
something of higher value. Quid pro quo.
But what if both
sides could meet their needs without giving up anything? As a consultant in
conflict resolution, I frequently have seen that happen.
I don’t believe in
unsolvable problems. In most conflicts that appear unsolvable, the problem
usually is that the problem is being defined in terms of solutions. A more
effective approach is to define the problem in terms of needs.
In the example
from Kennedy’s book, the local merchants defined the problem as a need to
remove competition, while the employees of the federal agency saw the problem
as one of job security. The merchants put forth a proposed solution (get rid of
the competing agency), while the employees defined their need.
In a hypothetical
extension of the conversation, the merchants might have been more persuasive
had they identified their need for a
sustainable profit margin. Eliminating the competition is one reasonable
solution; however, to attain that solution is to take away the source of income
from those who are employed by the competition.
As a consultant, I
would have both side generate possible solutions to the need for a sustainable
profit margin. Some examples might include investing in a more effective
marketing system, engaging more visibly in the life of the community,
partnering with the competition, etc.
[Yes, I said “Partnering with
the competition.” There’s an old story (unconfirmed) about the Wright brothers
approaching the railroad industry with a proposal for partnering. The railroad
companies laughed, saying, “We’re not in the airplane business; we’re in the
railroad business!”
Within a couple of
generations, the railroads were in trouble, losing much of their business to
the faster competition. The story’s point is that the railroad industry wrongly
defined its purpose as “railroad business,” instead of “transportation
business.”
A part of the recovery of the
railroad industry included partnering with the trucking industry to
“piggy-back” loads across the country.]
Sometimes
compromise is necessary. Sometimes principles need to concede to human need.
But, I am convinced that in many cases, concessions are not necessary if the
problem or conflict is redefined and raised to a new level.
I have seen it
work time after time: in marital relationships, in parent-child relationships,
in city government, and in the corporate world. One of my funniest conflict
resolution consultations was between a local PTA (I think it’s usually called
something else these days) and the teachers of an elementary school. That’s a
story for another time.
That’s the way it
looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
[1] Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 2005), page 30-31.
[2] John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), page 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment