Recently Stellenbosch University decided to close one of its men’s residences and reopen it later in a different, reimagined form.
The decision is controversial, not only because of the reasons for it, but also due to the intensity of conflicts among and within diverse stakeholder groups about it. In its statements on the matter the university reflects on the complexities of such a decision.
It seems less so for stakeholders, among which the drama intensifies by the day. Whoever comments on the process towards and the decision itself, they are inevitably seen to be either for or against the decision.
Any comment locates one on a simple divide between yes and no, irrespective of how refined an argument you try to make.
This dynamic seems a standard for public debate today.
Whether in an analysis of the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a discussion on the Bela Education Bill and the stability of the Government of National Unity, or debates in a local community about cellphones at schools, people prefer to debate in opposites, rather than nuances.
The trend illustrates an underlying social dynamic where citizens have opted to approach public debates with a particular mindset, often unwittingly so. This citizen decision is not necessarily a collective one where groups of people discuss different ways to view and approach a difficult matter.
It is rather a case of a shared way of interacting that emerges between people that associate with one another because they share the same view. It is a sociological process of influencing one another and confirming the approach as the right one by using and recognising it in others.
The more people observe each other using it, the more they also play along with what seems the desired way to be heard and their views to be considered valuable. Again, this most often is not a conscious decision for acceptance in a group, but rather an underlying dynamic of how groups function and interactions between members develop.
The approach to see those that have different views as a polar opposite in sociological terms is a performance in social binaries. “Binary theory” refers to the situation in public conversations and open debates where different views are seen as absolute and unchanging opposites.
As the conversations continue people begin to exaggerate their differences to the point that they seem to have nothing in common. The most troublesome part of binary debates is that it requires everyone to simplify the arguments they make; to reduce complexities to generalisations that require less explanation and assumes they are valid.
Binary debate is about reduction. It simplifies the question, assumes what statements mean, and considers only some examples of a situation sufficient and as the norm for all situations. “Continuum theory” offers an alternative to binary debate. Seen as a continuum, any situation or debate consists of an unending series of possible views between two extreme positions.
This means that while there are opposite views on any decision, such as yes or no, or for or against, there are a series of different perspectives between the binary opposites, each and all of which are equally valuable. Different views are taken as an expression of context and as a result of the unique situation of each person or group in relation to the question under discussion.
In a continuum perspective, arguments become more complex and the views that people hold become more fluid – they are open to change their views and shift their position. Binaries reduce; continuums enrich.
* Rudi Buys, NetEd Group Chief Academic Officer and Executive Dean, DaVinci Business Institute.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to [email protected].
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication)