Though
universe at highest level is un-manifested, invisible and indescribable and all
is one. Its manifested i.e. visible or felt part does exhibit diversity. For
simplicity we can say, manifested universe have two different traits and we
label them opposite of each other. In physical sciences, it is automatic and
instantaneous. Thus when we pass on a current in an iron ring, South and North
Pole of magnetism is created. Stable atoms also do have equal positive and
negative charge. In social sciences too, such opposite is imminent though for
some reason, may not be equal all the time. In management analysis we do SWOT analysis,
with presumption that, with Strength there must be some Weakness and with
available Opportunity there must be some Threat lying there. It must be again emphasized that Divine is beyond positives
and negatives, and they are merely a play and display of the relative and
creation of our mind.
Question is different phenomenon are opposite or complement of
each other? Does photon theory and wave theory of light are opposing each other
or complement each other to explain all properties of light? Red and Violet
colour are opposite or complement to make complete colour white? Einstein
proved Newton ( law of motion) wrong or extended it for specific situation? Now
Einstein, who said nothing can travel faster than
light speed, also seems to be wrong after NASA’s Hubble telescope have spotted
thousands of objects travelling over five times this speed in a distant galaxy.
In life science, we (animal) inhale oxygen and plants inhale carbon
dioxide, so, are we opposite of each other, or complement to each other? In the summer season we wish rain, and in
rainy season we wait for sun to shine. Thus we need both seasons to make
vegetative growth possible. Conclusion is all manifested have complementary
nature. It is nature’s diversity that gives us large number of different flora
and fauna and makes life beautiful and enriched.
In above examples we easily accepted
that opposites are actually complementary as they are from nature and science
that does not involve false superiority of one over other in mankind’s eye. But
when our own (of individual, nation) pride and passion involved in two
different concept, theories, culture, political system etc, we label them as
opposite instead of complements. Ours is correct, other’s is wrong. To be more
precise, human mind (in such situations) does highlight contrast and overlook
similarity. It also creates opposition or enemy where there is no one and so
on. Similarly, a single situation does have two perceptions. Take adverse
situation in life, one way is to perceive it as glorifying our qualities and
helping our qualities to come up, other way is to perceive them as though they put
obstacles in our way. In Ramayan, Ravana and all those characters, which appear
to be negative (opposing Ram) on one side, are in fact there to glorify the
positive (Ram). Take City lights on the eve of the new moon. They cannot vanish
the night, but the night is giving a chance to all these millions of lights to
shine. Thus in one way night is
glorifying the lights and the other way to look at it is that the lights are
fighting the night. It is just how we see things.
Before
we go further, let us discuss Man and Woman relationship (familiar to all of
us) to
have more clarity. Are they opposite or complement of each other? Because we have different sex organs, many of us feel that
men and women are opposites. But even with these organs, they do have sex with
each other and produce offspring. Further their talents, gifts, and strength are
joined to produce a mutual power (greater than one plus one) for growth and
development. This harmony can only occur between two complementary beings, not
opposites.
If we are truly opposite sexes, then we could never love one another, agree,
procreate, and perhaps never be truly compatible. So, try to think about your spouse as your complement and not your
opposite in marriage. I am certain it will revolutionize your married life.
My friend told
me for the first ten years of his married life he was cursing GOD that his wife
is not like him. But now for last thirty years he is thanking GOD that wife is
not like him. This friend can be my neighbor, you or even I.
Having discussed in general, now I, based
on dictionary, would define opposite as "the inability to agree or relate
in any fashion," and complementary as "born to interact, relate, and
empower each other. “Complementary" is used to
describe separate elements that together equal perfection, make a whole, or are
supplementary or reciprocal. This adjective can be used to refer to people,
other animals, objects, or concepts.
Now,
reality is that all (manmade) arrangements, brings with them some positives and
some negatives and so no single social (it includes, political and any other group)
arrangement or law is so comprehensive or exhaustive that it covers all mankind,
all the time guide them and fulfill all the needs and desire. To do so it needs interaction with other arrangement.
Also THE arrangement continues as long as its followers are in majority or
powerful in some way. Further, as discussed below under Maslow, a psychologist, law the
followers (of the arrangement) themselves, (having fulfilled some need with the
present arrangement seek something new which existing system is not able to
fulfill) discard it, so from its
inception it also brings in seeds of its own destruction. Examples of
above points are- status of woman started falling and child marriage started in
our golden period of History ie. Gupta dynasty period. Further, though, British
rule snatched our independence, it gave relief from inertia of late Mughal
period. We entered in it (British rule) as small-small princely states and came
out as Big one (except Pakistan part) India. History is filled with example how alternate
Viceroy adopted liberal-hard, and neutral-expansionist agenda under British
rule over India. Our first five year plan- agriculture oriented, gave way to
industry oriented second five year plan and so on. That is why Tennyson wrote-The
old order changeth, yielding place to new. And God fulfills Himself in many
ways. Lest one good Custom should corrupt the world
Now
let us see how these interaction affect the whole decision making process. For
example, if I alone purchase a T shirt, I will purchase plain white T shirt,
but wife says, white will soon lose shine and you should purchase some dark
shed. Does she opposing me or complementing my idea to enhance total value of my
purchase? Further, if son joins us, his view will be still different. Though
their advices seem to obstructing and delaying my decision of purchasing a T
shirt, in reality by giving due weights to each one’s advice, I will be adding value
to my purchase. This idea can be extended to social group, political parties, village,
state and nation. It must be remembered that the final things (decisions) are
created (reached) through the interaction (mere presence is not sufficient) of
those processes, which are complements to one another in some way.
In
spite of above benefits of interaction, we are stuck with old Aristotelian Law,
which states every proposition must be either true or false ( support/oppose),
which has been inappropriately extended to complex systems ( as above) in a
form which could be called the "Exclusivity of Opposites". According
to this principle, complex systems are classified into opposing groups on the
basis of only one (and generally not even the most important) of their
characteristics. Thus there can be opposing groups, based on relatively trivial differences, consisting of men
and women, blacks and whites, disabled and able bodied, etc. From here it is
only a small step to racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorship of
the proletariat, fundamentalism, feminism, affirmative action, aggressive trade
unionism and scores of further such problems plaguing mankind.
However,
the commonality between the interacting entities is obviously much more
important than their differences. For example, men and women share millions of
bodily processes of which only a handful are different. And creativity occurs only through the
interaction between all the (different) processes. The differences simply
catalyze the process of creation; remember similarities do not add any value to
the product. Thus Synergy of Complements is the creative collaboration between
two complex systems or processes which have many common, but also some opposing
characteristics. These two systems should not be regarded as
opposites, as it is generally the case, but rather as complements to one
another.
Above Complex
system can be best understood with Fuzzy logic which is a sort of computer logic that is different from Boolean
algebra which allows like Aristole logic, true or false or on and off values. Fuzzy
logic allows all things in between (of true and false) and has lead to many of the technological developments
that we enjoy today. Hector Sabelli who formulated a Process Theory (PT) recognizes
that the essence of life is action and acceptance of, change and uncertainty
being part of the world around us. He said having two opposing elements help to
maintain and, at the same time, to vary processes. Newton also stated that [in
the process of keeping something in equilibrium] "for every action, there
must be a reaction" and "a body will remain at rest or in motion in a
straight line at a constant speed until unbalanced
external forces act upon it." These are in fact process laws and
make sense only when one is talking of processes, as the state of rest in the
universe can only be maintained by processes.
Having discussed in general and theory
behind it, let us analyze the positive and negatives of an observed trait
“being decisive” in public life/ policy making (hence forth policy maker for
any level). Decisiveness is a condition that is produced primarily by policy
maker who have great certitude. This refers to those people who operate
primarily on the basis of passions, belief and faith rather than the intellect.
They feel strongly about something at a deep level and find it difficult to see
the other point of view. Now every policy maker is faced with a choice,
to choose option A over option B, but do not always know what will happen, and
have limited capacity (due to own bias and inclination etc) to examine what the
probabilities of outcome. Policy maker
should also try to see how his action will affect others and how they will in
turn react. This is more complex and, particularly on issues like war
and the economy. The dictionary tells us that decisiveness is someone “showing
the ability to take decisions quickly and firmly". Firmly, in this case,
means overruling the objections or concerns of those whose counsel is caution?
So who is decisive and strong policy maker? It is the ability to make choice (when
outcome is unclear) that others in the same position hesitate to do. Our
understanding of why something is decided by the decisive policy maker must
accommodate why it was left undecided or decided differently by someone else.
Thus cautious person and person having different view will not serve under such
policy maker; he will be surrounded by people who will not oppose them. A lack
of appreciation or hostility and criticism towards different/ opposite view (which
is in fact is complementary and can enrich his own view) reflects great
insecurity, can lead to mistakes in policymaking and may hamper realization of
desired goals. He will then live in a pleasant make-believe environment, until
the harsh truth can no longer be denied. Point is in policy making differences
should be accepted and be utilized to stimulate creativity but de-emphasised as
they tend to distract attention from the common processes. Unattended, large
scale conflict (opposition) can have detrimental consequences and should be
avoided at all costs. From this point of view, being “decisive” is not all
positive quality. What at first appears to be strength and determination then
comes across a little as recklessness and what was painted as softness and
indecisiveness can then be viewed as caution.
Further
policy maker should take in to account Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”
that demonstrates the human needs in the shape of a pyramid. The base of the
motivational order begins with the life-sustaining physiological needs like,
food, water shelter and sex (for survival of species), which must be met to
survive. The next level comprises of needs for security
and safety, to live without stress and worry. The third level is social needs
that include the need for sense of belonging and love. Further up the pyramid
is a person’s need for self-esteem and social recognition and accomplishment.
The need for self-actualization is at the very top of the pyramid.
Maslow believed that needs played a major role in motivating
behavior (for a political policy maker it means voting for him), and higher
needs don’t seem as urgent and aren’t persuaded when lower needs are not met. He classified the first
four levels of the pyramid, as deficiency needs (also
called D-needs) as these needs are caused due to deprivation. Likewise, highest
level of the pyramid is growth needs (also called B-needs). Growth needs do not
arise because of deprivation, but rather from a desire to grow. The specific
form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to
person and are dynamic for a person from time to time. In one individual it may
take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be
expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting
pictures or in inventions. Similarly a single person may feel different need at
different times, in office good boss and at home good parent/ spouse
Based on two points discussed- First, no human being,
no social system is complete. Second, whatever and however great its
achievement, participant / beneficiary will always fill lack of something and
strive for change ( Maslow). Conclusion is if any system or social order wishes to extend
its shelf life for policy making,( having explained complementary nature of
opposite), it is always better to co opt
opposite view rather than crush it.
But alas, the concept of opposites (and crushing it) is
deeply engrained in our society. Right from the beginning of our life, we
classify things into opposite pairs. We start conscious life by realizing the
difference between me and not-me. Instead of teaching our children about
opposites, we should teach them about complements and synergy. We should teach
that men and women, day and night, black and white, people speaking our
language and those who do not, etc. are complements and not opposites.
Can we
approach issues this way? Such an approach will be an antidote to the hopeless
strife we have been experiencing and continue to experience in our world.
Through it we might appreciate that the world cannot be divided into two camps,
one of which is right and the other wrong. We shall be able to understand and
appreciate those who might look and think different from us, but share the
great majority of our own concerns for love, peace, justice and beauty. As a
final word we must add that the Synergy of Complements is an inclusive
principle: it does accept opposition, turning it to own advantage.
