One of the fundamental life lessons often echoed in books, movies and TV shows is: life is not just black and white, but rather, various shades of grey. This real-world application of the tonal scale makes its way into morals of stories and sighs about the difficult decisions we face.
Yet, in a sense, we often disregard this idea completely. We live in a society that imposes choice. Yes or no. Right or Wrong. You’re either with me or against me. But if the lessons parents teach their children say that there is no straight and easy answer, no distinct line, why do we insist on creating that line?
I, by no means, intend to turn this into a heated debate about abortion, but I think the issue presents a good example. The debate is always pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) versus anti-abortion (or “pro-life”–a term I dislike). The answer does not necessarily have to be either/or. I respect everyone’s opinion about such a sensitive issue, and am only using this example to make a point. When circumstances change, one could argue that you should adapt. Shouldn’t at least part of the decision-making process give consideration to the particulars of a situation? Everyone is different and so is every situation. Whatever happened to: “To each his own”?
A similarly divisive, but arguably more historic, debate is nature versus nurture. Now, I seem to have a hard time believing that only one of these influences has made me the person I am today. Yes, some things are inherent in genetic code. By nature. Yes, our upbringing has a large effect on many aspects of our lives. Thus, nurture. Why choose an extreme? Why not compromise?
Can it be that a universal concept is also obsolete? Or, hard to come by, at least.
The widespread news coverage of political flip-flops also follows this trend. The second a candidate changes his or her mind, all hell breaks loose and the candidate becomes “indecisive” or “unsure of where he or she stands.” He said he would support the bill, but now he’s against it. Why can’t he just make up his mind?! Granted that much of the media criticism may be appropriate and well-deserved, there is also another perspective. Certainly, many circumstances can change in the period of a few years, or even a few months. Might these changes lead to changes in a person’s stance on an issue? Yes. If you promised your friend you would go shopping together, but in the last minute there was a massive storm, or your child’s carpool fell through, or your sick neighbor asked you for a ride to the hospital, wouldn’t you re-prioritize a little? Surely, you wouldn’t go shopping at the expense of abandoning your child on an empty soccer field. If these are just everyday occurrences, then political matters on a large scale, too, may, at times, require some reorganization. Now, I agree that our leaders should not be indecisive. But they should be accommodating and adapting.
We have grown to love sitting at one extreme and glaring at those who sitting on the other end. They said don’t kill the messenger, the middleman, but we always get the urge. When we see someone sitting on the fence, we want to push them off. Hurry up & pick a side already! But why? Why not compromise? Maybe the person who coined the term “happy medium” was on to something.
