False Binaries

The world is a complex place. Human beings hate that. We like simple stories. That's why we're so susceptible to bias. We're programmed to take the complicated, nuanced world around us and reduce it to concepts our feeble minds can understand. We all do it. We can't help it.

Right now, our society is facing a lot of problems. One of those problems is how we look at our problems. Kinda meta, I know. But think about all the debates in American society these days that we've reduced to two sides, good and bad, right and wrong, liberal and conservative. When we talk about issues like gun control, the economy, and civil rights we grossly oversimplify them. Not every issue has two sides. Some have only one side. Some have as many sides as there are people involved.

When we're presented with two sides of an argument, often there is a tacit assumption that one side is right and one is wrong. However, this is a false binary. Both sides can be right or both sides can be wrong. Either side can be partially right or partially wrong. Or it may not even be a question of right or wrong, but one of personal preference. There are many possibilities.

For instance, let's take a look at the debate on gun control. This is often presented as a two-sided debate. At one extreme we have the crazy gun nuts who believe there should be no restrictions on gun ownership at all. At the other extreme we have the crazy liberals who are coming to take all the guns away. The problems is, while these groups probably exist, they are mostly used by the opposing sides as strawmen. We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good argument. But the facts are that 55% of Americans want stricter gun control laws, and only 11% want less strict laws. And 86% of Americans favor universal background checks. Only 27% favor a handgun ban. These numbers paint a complex picture of Americans' views of guns. A vast majority believe gun ownership should be legal. And a vast majority believe gun ownership should be well-regulated.

But false binaries are not exclusive to opposing sides of a debate. Even issues which should (necessarily) be one-sided (if we wish to call our country democratic) such as racial inequality (there shouldn't be any) can cause division among people who should be allies. While it is a sad fact that racism is still far too rampant in America these days, it does not prevent those opposed to racism from arguing with each other. There are those who argue we must engage the other side with civility and empathy, and there are those who argue we must denounce racism more strongly. However, even though one of these arguments is my own, I've realized this is simply another false binary. Both approaches have their place. 

Racism is multi-faceted in America. It is a combination of individuals' explicit and implicit biases, ignorance, outright hatred, and historic institutionalized racism. While all these forms of racism are related, it would be naive to assume that the solution to the problem would not be multi-faceted as well. More overt forms of racism require unequivocal and strong, perhaps even militant, forms of opposition. However, a more subtle approach may be more effective in cases where an individual may be unaware of their implicit biases and ignorance. To favor one approach over another is to deny the complex reality of the situation.

In general, I believe it is useful when approaching a debate to question whether you're being presented with a false binary. Oftentimes, the third solution is the best one.