What is it about the human condition that makes people think that the only way to operate is in two opposing ways? In a crisis the human condition chooses either ‘flight’ or ‘fight’, in a battle it is either ‘win’ or ‘lose’, and in a relationship it is either ‘stay’ or ‘leave’. Similarly in conversation it seems that most will opt for either a ‘for’ or ‘against’ position, as evidenced in debates.
Is the only way of operating by taking this rather unhelpful ‘either/or’ position, a polarity which inevitably results in disagreement and conflict, achieving very little but two stated positions that sit on the north and south poles? Is not the aim of relating and talking with each other to find middle earth so to speak, to find resolution and agreement or a new perspective, so that people can evolve and grow from those experiences, making peace rather than making wars? Would it be so bold as to postulate that perhaps the reason why so many world leaders find it difficult to reach agreement is because they feel their only option is to hold on tight to their position, too frightened to step into middle earth and experience what lies there? It would be naive, of course, to think that this is the answer to all the world problems, but it would be equally careless to underestimate the power of how two people relate in conversation.
I wish to propose the idea of 3-D thinking which adopts a ‘both/and’ approach as the best way to tackle the many issues facing students and universities in today’s current climate, not through debate. This is not to say that debates do not have some purpose. They raise issues which need discussing and they put forward two opposing views highlighting differences of opinions, the extreme views if you like. That is the nature of debate, to argue your side of the story. But how useful is that and how appropriate is it in a university setting when one would hope that the intention of raising issues is to do it in a way which promotes free and open thinking without such opposing views? Debates only perpetuate the polarity of extreme views rather than promote conflict resolution. It seems fitting that a new way of thinking is introduced to enable change and promote closer relationships between students and the universities.
The idea of a ‘both/and’ approach is not new. It has been theorised in psychology, in theology, and only this year did Barack Obama promote the idea by stating that the only way to build a new financial regulatory system was to switch from an ‘either/or’ position to a ‘both/and’ position. But what exactly does the term mean and how can it help students and universities? One of the best ways of illustrating its usefulness is to apply it to two opposing views. Let’s take two principles in the Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 8 Freedom to Privacy and Article 10 Freedom of Expression. If we view these Articles from an ‘either/or’ position, and put two people in a room and say argue for and against, all that will be achieved is the voicing of two opposing views and reasons for those views. However, we all know that at different times in our lives we both want privacy and the right to express ourselves. In this way we are both private and public beings. The ‘both/and’ position allows us to move away from extremities and see things from a third dimension, like 3-D viewing. Once we accept that there will always be two sides to a situation, if not more, a fresh and new perspective emerges, resulting in infinite possibilities and preventing extreme views. If it achieves that one single outcome then it is worth thinking about, in a 3-D fashion of course.
*This article was submitted to The Guardian for their competition called Free Debate. The article was selected and made it to the finals, but unfortunately did not win. Here are the winning articles: http://www.guardian.co.uk/free-d
