Posted by
PeterE on Monday, September 10, 2007 2:00:38 PM
Gestalt is a concept in psychology that argues that we perceive an image as a whole rather than piece by piece - and this observation is then applied to how we "see" the world in different ways.
The classic example is to show an image which "read" a certain way is a rabbit, but read another way is a duck. Another classic image is of a vase, which also looks like two faces in profile looking at each other.
I may be stretching the psychological concept, but it seems to me that the polarization in politics (and religion etc) is partly due to our tendency to "see" facts from one point of view, and not to be able to grasp that they could be interpreted otherwise if we make certain other assumptions.
As a person who has switched from one side in politics to the other, I have been able to see the Gestalt effect at work in myself and in others. I think it helps us understand others if we take this effect into consideration.
Reading debates on TH, for example, it is fascinating how quickly a debate between two apparently intelligent people degenerates into frustration and ad hominem. They just don't understand why the other person doesn't see their point of view. It is easier (but still painful) to attribute it to stupidity or bad faith than to try and see it as a duck instead of a rabbit.
Of course one can say that two viewpoints exist because we "hold" different ideologies. But the question is "why". If I admit that I see a rabbit because I am a Republican, why can't I admit that the reason he sees it as a duck is because he is a Democrat?
Because that would introduce relativism into the equation and therefore relativise my position. My position is no longer the truth - it is only the truth for me as a Republican, a relative truth.
That also raises the possibility that I could actually make the effort of seeing that it is a duck. And then I might realize I could be wrong to see it as a rabbit!
When it comes to religious persuasion, to an even deeper degree, the Gestalt effect becomes more challenging to perceive. In places where there is religious war, the duck-perceivers are not even human.
Now for the difficult part. If I try to transcend the Gestalt switch in order to recognize the humanity of the other, am I not opening myself to relativism, or must I think that there is a higher truth than either Conservatism or Liberalism? Well isn’t it possible to look at the drawing and see how it can be either a duck or a rabbit?
Well, I’m a nice person, so of course I don’t want people accusing me of a slide into relativism. So I conclude that there must exist a higher point of view that can see the truth content in both of the ideologies of Conservatism and Liberalism.
It’s like we have two squabbling brothers, who are just about to kill each other out of frustration. Ever heard of Cain and Abel? Well a parent could come along and help them to end their squabble and see that the fight is not worth killing for, and that they both have some ground for their points of view.
Do I possess an ideology that transcends the viewpoints of the two brothers, and helps us see both the duck and the rabbit? I don’t have the details (you’re shocked, I know) but it is possible to dig into the roots of the two ideologies and see where their essence lies. First we have to be willing to overcome the resentment of Cain and Abel.
Excursus:
Now one could certainly argue that such a viewpoint is not new, and that would be correct.
Hegel’s conception of thesis and antithesis, being sublimated into a synthesis is an attempt to deal with a similar question. But his solution requires that we buy into his entire metaphysic, with a conclusion being that there is as it were a teleological inevitability surrounding the synthesis. I’m not going there.
Another approach goes back to Aristotle. He argued that if we come across two opposite points of view, truth must reside in a “golden mean”. What that “mean” is however is to be found through concrete analysis, and we should not assume that if I think “rabbit” and you think “duck” the truth is “rabuck”, i.e. the average of the two positions.
It could also be said that it is hardly new for people on “both sides of the aisle” to work together and seek common ground in order, for example, to achieve some legislation. But this activity is usually practical compromise, not the articulation of a higher point of view. Often if politicians seek middle ground it may be out of “cherry picking” the positions of the two parties and may not result in the creation of a synthesizing ideology. This could also be a fruit of cowardice rather than an articulation of principle.