Stage-3: Dualistic Tensions

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

Identify Polarizing Tensions

The holistic model provides an overview of the key categories relevant to the situation, but it lacks any life or relation to emotional preferences more generally. We can bring it to life by identifying fundamentals that directly tap into human survival and basic personal functioning, because those will emerge in every situation in one form or another.

At least three features of any situation are enduring and inescapable and reveal polarization that must be recognized and handled.

1. Us v Them or In-group v Out-group.
ClosedMore

2. Good v Evil or Right v Wrong.
ClosedMore

3. Self-determined v Milieu determined.
ClosedMore

These fundamental dimensions of psycho-social functioning shape situations. and their appearance will vary. In addition there may be situation-specific polarizations e.g. manual v automation, urban v rural, progress v stability, private v public.

The persistence of divisions reflects alternative narratives that carry credibility.

Values & Assumptions

Stage-3-dualistic to bring life to the explanation of the situation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Polarized Division

The situation will contain people or groups whose interests and beliefs are diametrically opposed in regard to the nature and evolution of the situation. Identification of this deep polarization can put events in perspective so that what seemed unnecessary or puzzling now appears to be a manifestation of powerful forces that may be persistent.

ClosedDesired Benefit: Exposure of Disputes

Disputes and disagreements in a situation are often hidden and what is visible are delays, mistakes or breakdowns. Once tensions and polarization are recognized, conflicts can be brought into view and it becomes possible to find a workable compromise. Disputes and their degree of resolution are what require clarification in relation to practical choices—more so than the underlying division or presence of tensions.

ClosedMeans: Persistent Tensions

Tensions show as persistent avoidance or aggression, and they can generate problems of all sorts. Investigation commonly reveals divisions based on underlying irreconcilable viewpoints. Commonly those involved will argue the rationality of their position, but once it is evident that there is a persistence of opposing camps, then the tensions and the issues resulting from them require a different approach.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Accommodate Difference

When identifying polarization, it is necessary to provide for differences of opinion and allegiance by group members. The goal is for the group as a whole to see that their divergent experiences and emotions are being taken seriously. The division needs to be acknowledged and the potentials for either a destructive course or constructive resolution identified.

ClosedCommunication: Speak Respectfully

Respectful communications are essential to reduce tensions and expose disputes. It is very easy to have a preference to one side of the polarity and therefore to speak in relation to the alternative in a way that is hypercritical, dismissive or demeaning. This will be taken personally by anyone identified with that pole. As a result, rather than generating clarification, arguments will emerge that foster obfuscation or attack the legitimacy of the underlying model.

ClosedIndividualization: Legitimize Diversity

The positive value of each pole of any duality that is emergent in the situations needs to be identified and promoted. It must be made clear that the various tensions and polarizations are to be expected and that sharply diverse perspectives with their own rationales can be legitimately maintained.

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Impartiality

Actively ensuring impartiality in presenting details of the situation, whatever your particular views, is only fair but it means actively keeping your biases under control. Impartiality is valuable because it lends credibility and fosters trust. It shows respect for the audience by encouraging them to form their own opinions. In particular, it reduces the chance of your proposed explanations being rejected.

If the modelling of purpose and a clear formulation of policy in Stage-2 does not lead to progress, more clarification can be provided.

In discussion with the Board members, there appeared to be a fundamental tension polarizing people when determining priorities. Some were highly emotional while others were strictly logical. The emotional selection of a priority was highly personal and focused, neglecting many important matters. In sharp contrast, the logical analyses of priorities took a responsible organizational and social perspective and was comprehensive. In practice, either approach could be applied.

In other words, our Stage-2 psycho-social model of purpose must be modified slightly to show two sorts of priority that are in opposition to each other.

When this tension was applied to the strategic objective, it become evident that the personal-emotional and logical-organizational features could not be teased out separately: both applied simultaneously. If either were absent, then the strategic objective would not function properly.

While the holistic model of purposes had now become more complicated, it was also more realistic, and respect could develop amongst the discussants with differing psychological positions.

Limitations

The introduction of powerful social forces into the model represents a step-change in improving an explanation and clarifying the situation.

However, no attention has yet been given to the model components, that is to say the specific factors and forces that drive the evolution of the situation.

Settling at this Stage

Recognizing the inherent polarizing tensions within a holistic model of the situation may provide sufficient clarity about the situation.

If this is the case, then there will be no felt need to seek further clarification.

Transition

However, there may still be dissatisfaction with the explanation as elaborated so far, typically in relation to how the situation is likely to evolve. In that case, further attention is required to develop the narrative.

That means becoming aware of the state of the components and their mutual influences.

The initial mode-1 causal explanation was subjectively generated without excessive concern for the realities.

The next mode-2 structural model was objectively developed in an effort to cover a class of real-world situations.

The present mode-3 polarizing tension is subjectively generated by empathy with those in the situation.

The following mode-4 would therefore be expected to be objectively developed.

The mode that naturally provides for an objective account of the interactions and influences amongst model components is the Dynamic-L'1.

ClosedRuling Out Alternative Moves

Originally posted: 30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 30-Apr-2025.