Sometimes There's No Middle Ground in Compromise - The Way of Phi in Practice -

When compromise feels like a dance, we're probably doing something right

Dear friend,

If you've followed me for a while, you probably know that I have a predilection for three. You know, the number that comes after one and two. But in order to get to three, we must first pass one and two. And without a solid understanding of both, we simply cannot understand three properly. And the station before three, i.e. two, is fundamental; it cannot be bypassed.

One of the ways to see the Problem that we find ourselves in is the 'either-or' mentality. This is Polarisation. Either one – or two. Either we agree – or we disagree. It is then tempting to think that this can be resolved with a compromise and think of that as three, but that, I think, is a mistake. For if we think of three as a compromise, we haven't really understood it, because fundamentally I see a healthy compromise as saying no in one of two ways. Here's what I mean:

Let's say that we have decided to go to the movies together and you want to see one film whereas I want to see another. Now, if we are going to see a movie together, we will have to choose one. If we are each staying with our own movies, we are not going to the movies together and that means that we have abandoned the idea of going to the movies together. But if we stay with the idea that we want to go to the movies together, then one of us – or both of us – will have to give up something.

So, either I can say 'yes' to your suggestion and say 'no' to my own, which is then an internal 'no'. Or I can say 'no' to you and stand firm with my idea, and then it's an external 'no'. I see both of these as possible first steps to a compromise.

The only way that we can avoid saying 'no' to either you or me – is to say 'no' to both of us and decide to watch a different movie altogether, one that neither of us wanted to see originally. Indeed, I know people who resolve conflicts this way. But that, I would argue, is not a compromise.

We could also try some kind of half-half solution wherein we watch the first half of your movie and the second half of mine, but that doesn't really make sense, because unless we know both movies really well already, we will probably not enjoy watching only half of them – not getting the resolution of the first or the buildup of the second. I guess we could do it as some kind of experiment, but it is probably going to be a very different kind of experience than what is usually inferred from 'watching a movie' – not least because we are effectively not watching a movie, but two half movies, which do not constitute a whole. So, then we have deviated from the original idea again.

A compromise, on the other hand, is more complex, because sometimes it involves not getting my wish fulfilled and I will meet you. And sometimes it means not letting go of my position and requiring that you meet me. And both of these can be fine as long as one of us is prepared to abandon their original wish.

However, you may have noticed that I wrote a healthy compromise, for I see that there is also an unhealthy one. A passive-aggressive, or even malevolent, social behavioural pattern that masquerades as compromise. You probably know the pattern: We discuss a matter and cannot agree, so one of us folds and 'agrees' to do what the other one wants, but inwardly resents it and then guilt-trips the other throughout the experience by reminding the first person of how kind he or she was and requests that the other one be grateful for the sacrifice and so on. And that is not fine.

Interestingly, the verb 'compromise' has three meanings according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

One is 'to accept that you will reduce your demands or change your opinion in order to reach an agreement with someone', which is what I called 'healthy compromise'.

Both the second and third involve elements of the 'unhealthy compromise' that we discussed, where one involves 'to allow your principles to be less strong or your standards or morals to be lower' and the other is to outright 'risk having a harmful effect on something'.

So, if we want to stay with the healthy compromise, we are required to be able to say 'no' – either to ourselves or to the other. But ultimately, unless we are able to say 'no' both to ourselves and to others, I cannot see us ending up anywhere other than in the unhealthy compromise.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 

Still here,

Christopher

PS Click here to get The Way of Phi