We live in a land of dichotomies: Coke or Pepsi; White or Wheat; Red or Blue; Right or Left. And it didn't require a conspiracy or Machiavellian plan to get here. The same tools are available to everyone commercially. So whatever it is you are "selling", Cola, bread, dogma, or the fact of bifurcation itself, you are bound to use the same media, with the same desirable demographics, and thus the same packaging via the same delivery mechanisms. What surprise then that all these things seem in fact, over time, to become the same thing?
Such operations are costly, and that cost sometimes even brings people together. "We have differences, sure," two parties say, "but what we share is most important." So they unite for what they believe is a common good. Those who will deliver their message most effectively then, may well be those who unite those formerly the most different. To "win", then, may be to eliminate the greatest range of distinctiveness.
There is an equal and opposite reaction, of course. Once A has become successful, B inevitably rises. But how can be compete with A? Well, largely by defining itself not as B, but as "Not A". Those who oppose A have that in common at least. And so a new group is defined, not by something they share with each other but by something they do not share with A. Soon, some new element arises in B, a badge that demonstrates the depth of their objection to A. It spreads among B, and a culture is born.
Here's the tricky part: Two subcultures have now coalesced, made up of people differentiated only by their opinions on whatever the core A issue is. With so much attention paid to issue A, it can now be assumed that there is general agreement on virtually everything else. In fact, to prove how "reasonable" they are, both A and B will work hard to demonstrate that agreement. And in doing so, will prop each other up.
And why not? A and B have a pretty good thing going by now. Lots of space on store shelves, plenty of time on the chat shows. What's A going to talk about if B's out of the picture? B agrees, seeing that being a close second is a pretty good gig, all told, and really, those top two spots do a lot of back and forth anyway. Better to be magnanimous. So, while A and B have their differences, at least they're not C. And to consider D would be unconscionable.
I've been thinking about the recent debate over government mandated birth control and Catholic institutions.I am astounded by the extent to which all these opposing bad ideas actually support one another. The controversy moves all discussion to the wrong place. And in doing so props up a system of bilateral wrongness.
Someone recently asked me whether I thought Catholic institutions had the right not to pay for birth control for their employees. That's exactly the question the administration would like you to ask, framed in just about precisely their preferred way: in terms of a powerful entity, the church, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
Someone on the other side might have an ideal formation of their own, probably along the lines of: Does the government have the right to force the church to violate its moral principles? Again, a powerful entity, the government, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
So as not to keep you in suspense, I will go ahead and answer both questions: Yes. Both of these groups have every right to impose these restrictions. Because in both cases, they are made upon people who are willing participants. Those who object to the government, can of course oppose its actions in all the usual ways--from contacting their congressman, to voting them out, on through to the right of revolution ensconced in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those who oppose the church can simply leave it, work elsewhere, and stop supporting the institution with their dollars and the association others reasonably might make between their beliefs and their choice of employment.
I should be clear here: I think singling birth control out as unsupported by health insurance for your employees is a bad idea, but it is one that flows naturally from a whole set of bad ideas. My hope would be that eventually it would die out, thanks to people's individual choices and the obvious unpopularity of the concept, even among most Catholics. But it won't die out, not at this rate. No, the government will once again "protect" people from making their own choices, by insuring that they have no real sting. They'll get birth control anyway, and not have to consider the silly policy put in place by their employer, or what impact it has had on the rest of the world. So B will grumble that they've been overridden. And, thanks to A, they can continue on their way, perpetuating more bad ideas.
And they have every right to do so; after all, while I called them A and B for convenience sake, the hapless decision makers at the center of it are you and I. Or perhaps I should phrase that in the only genuine dichotomy I know: there is really only Me and "Not Me."
No comments:
Post a Comment