In a culture of “we/they”, the issue of “they” can dominate thinking and action to the extent that seldom are things of any common good ever accomplished. When a mind is fixated on oppositional thinking, it is difficult to engage in propositional outcomes. When this happens, one needs to either dramatically change one’s predispositions or, as in a hockey face off when two opponents are not able to “settle in for a face off”, one needs to step aside and let those who are able to face off do the necessary work. To approach problem-solving with oppositional thinking is to see the world of possibilities with one eye only.
I am fortunate that both of my eyes function well. Also, as with all Homo Sapiens, my eyes are positioned for forward-sight and are bi-focal. With both eyes open, I can see things in their three dimensions. As many of us do now and then, I close one eye to simulate what it must be like to see from one eye only. Invariably with only one eye open, I turn my head to see things peripherally. Closing one eye narrows my field of vision by at least one half, perhaps more. Additionally, I find myself moving my head from side-to-side in the attempt to gain the dimension of distance. Seeing with one eye only robs my brain of visual depth. Perhaps over time my brain could accommodate this, but in the immediacy of looking at the world with one eye only I have no depth perception.
With one eye only, my understanding of the world before me is limited. I cannot see all that is before me and I cannot see both of my peripheries. And, with one eye only, I lack my natural depth perception. I cannot accurately judge the distance of objects before me and I am subject to either standing still or bumping into things.
I believe that this is the dilemma that people with parochial thinking face when confronted with diverse propositions. Their singular point of view disables their brains’ capacity for propositional thinking. They cannot see new peripheries and can focus only the objects of their desire without seeing the breadth of possibilities or the depth of alternatives.
My argument does not disregard informed fervor. When one has studied a variety of options with an open mind to the validity and potentiality of all and has settled on an “informed” best, fervor for that decision is logical and proper. However, fervor without being adequately informed is blind ambition.
As a child, I often heard my parents say when dividing arguing siblings and trying to settle the dispute, “It takes two to tango.” Start getting along and work things out together, they would say. I always thought they said, “It takes two to tangle.” Perhaps my mishearing heard the right message. Parochial thinking when no one else is involved may be harmless in the immediacy. But, when others are involved and each is applying a self-narrowed mind set, it truly does take to two to tango (or disentangle). One person alone cannot alter their thinking to create a more harmonious outcome; each party needs to make accommodations. Without mutuality of accommodation, resentment will be a constant irritant that will eventually erupt into future dispute.
Therapists undoubtedly see a great deal of professional “couch” work in the world of narrow-minded thinkers. Short of therapy, my recommendation is the same as we give to all persons when they arrive at a significant intersection. “Stop. Wait. Look. Listen. Proceed with caution.” This admonition is more than apt when applied to persons arriving at the intersection of ideas and points of view. Stopping, waiting and looking allows our bifocular vision to work properly. Stopping to look necessitates a cessation of forward momentum in the current direction. Stopping to stand still is a conscious act. Waiting allows everything around you to find a point of reference. With reference points, what you see is not observed as things passing constantly to the rearward but as subjects worthy of your notice. Looking while stationary allows one to truly see what lies before and around you, like a large truck barreling down the street from your right. Or objects of beauty and ideas of significance. And, then listening. This requires a commitment to trying to hear what the world and others around you are saying.
This works! It has no out-of-pocket costs. It can be applied anywhere and anytime. It provides a role model for others. And, it does not preclude continuing in the same direction at the same pace if stopping, waiting, looking and listening presents new and viable information.
Sometimes we are our own greatest obstacle to our successful understanding of our world. Observing our world with one eye closed limits our opportunity to understand. We should not choose to be our own obstacles.