Press "Enter" to skip to content

Comfort with complexity

Being comfortable with complexity. It’s something that’s been on my mind for years. But I was reminded of it again after reading an otherwise-sneering Mother Jones profile of the New York Times’s “conservative” columnist, Ross Douthat.

Now, Douthat isn’t “conservative” by any standard most folks would recognize around here (federal wage subsidies, anyone?). But what got Mother to ooohing and aaahing is that Douthat is apparently a thinker who is comfortable with nuance and complexity.

The writer, Mark Oppenheimer, just could not wrap his head around the idea of a “conservative” who didn’t toe some O’Reillyesque party line.

Of course, if you weren’t Mother Jones you’d realize you could say the same thing about the alleged other side. Nat Hentoff, Glenn Greenwald, and my old favorite Sam Smith are all “liberals” who don’t toe anybody’s line. And they’re just as exceptional.

All of them are exceptions in an atmosphere where public discourse is so often nothing but black-and-white judgments. And rants. I don’t care whether you’re talking about some FoxNewsie or uber-knee-jerker Keith Olbermann. The fashion is: “My worldview, white; your worldview, black. And I’m gonna shout it to the rooftops.”

I’m bringing this up not because anybody ought to give a damn about any columnist’s or commentator’s opinion. But because this bears on personal freedom in a way that’s been nagging at my brain for a very long time.

I believe that one vital personal charactistic for freedom seekers is being comfortable with complexity. Seeing nuance. Not dividing all reality into stark blacks and whites.

Of course there are moral blacks and whites. Serial killing of innocents? As black as it gets. Taxation? Black, black, black.

But I’ll bet some reader is already jumping in, thinking, “But wait, taxation is necessary and sometimes it’s used for beneficial purposes.” And some other reader might be asking, “Hm. Do politicians qualify as innocents?”

And thus the world rolls on. Complex and nuanced.

Yet you’d never know it, reading and listening to most opinionizers: Sarah Palin — saint and savior! Sarah Palin — brainless Barbie doll and neo-con puppet! Global warming is ‘settled science’ and anybody who questions even one iota of it is a ‘denier.’ If you’re against the war on terror, you’re a ‘terrorist sympathizer.’ If you don’t like Obama’s policies, you’re a ‘racist.’ And so on and so on — on every side.

I’ve seen the same black-and-white knee jerking in messages from readers over the years. For instance, if I ever dare link to or cite the ACLU in a favorable way, I’m certain to get an email from somebody deriding me as a big-government liberal and/or a complete ignoramus who doesn’t know what an eeeeeevil organization I’m praising. The reality is that, from my freedomista perspective, the ACLU has taken some great positions (free speech) and some incredibly poor ones (against gun rights, in favor of nouveau political rights). Some black. Some white. Lots of gray.

And what kind of fool would I be if I insisted only those who agreed with me 100 percent on every issue could be my friends and allies? I’d have darned few allies or friends! And likewise, what kind of “freedom” is it that insists that every person espouse identical views or live life within the narrowest range of opinion or lifestyle?

T’aint freedom at all. Nuance and complexity are inherent in freedom, and minds capable of considering them are needed for both personal and political freedom.

These are just my first quick thoughts. More on this subject, probably within the next few days.

16 Comments

  1. Dan Perkins
    Dan Perkins February 10, 2010 10:04 am

    So often “discourse” today does not consist of, “convince my opponent through cogent argument and possibly adjust my view as they do the same”, but rather, “demonize my opponent so that anybody who agrees with me the slightest bit will be unwilling to even consider their view”. Extremism is the norm and it is the enemy of reason.
    I belong to a garden/wildlife forum and the people there are fairly reasonable. Their ecologically inclined but reasonable. There was even a civil discussion about global warming in which almost everyone agreed that each side should listen to the other. However, on the subject of TNR (trap, neuter, release) of feral cats they were as staunch in their opposition as any abortion protester. Most people have their hot-button issue and the ideologues know this and use it to their advantage.

  2. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal February 10, 2010 10:12 am

    My thought is that as long as someone is going my way, toward liberty, in some area, then in that area they are on my side. You wouldn’t intentionally hop on a train and ride it past your destination. It is useful as long as it is still heading where you need to go.

  3. Winston
    Winston February 10, 2010 11:44 am

    When you oversimplify something, you lose the true nature and meaning of it, and you’ll lead yourself into contradictions and philisophical or moral messes. Goes for anything.

    Such an important topic, thanks for writing this.

    (Is the next installment going to be ‘Comfort with abstraction’? =] Please?)

  4. Kevin Wilmeth
    Kevin Wilmeth February 10, 2010 12:33 pm

    Great topic, although I’d always prefer to simplify, and non-aggression really is darn simple. The problem with the “life is complex” theme is that it has been thoroughly hijacked by those who use it as a perpetual strawman crutch to support every sort and manner of authoritarian nonsense–and so it has become almost a code-word for “what follows next is unmitigated BS”. I’ll avoid lending any credence to it if I have the choice.

    Yes, of course there are times when we need to sit back and really consider a mitigating factor, but let’s face it: most uses of the basic phrase “life is complex” have a ring eerily similar to invocations of the “commerce clause” (hock, spit).

    For what my opinion is worth, I think a lot of our problem is rooted in this damnable fixation we have with belonging to, identifying with, some group, as a proxy agent for what we’d otherwise have to come to grips with ourselves. It seems that we’re all susceptible to it, to some degree or another, and those who really seem to “get” liberty, not just in limited example but in real concept, seem to be those who are best able to put aside the Faustian temptation to outsource their thinking or their identity.

    In my experience, too, there is an unintended benefit to this attitude. By way of example: ever notice how those who take their personal security seriously (not Walter-Mitty-seriously, okay?) are focused on awareness first and foremost? The byproduct of this is that you see far more of what goes on around you than you did before–and what you notice is that there is far more humanity, decency, music, and beauty in the world than you ever realized was there. The risks and dangers are certainly there too, but you can almost always see them coming and they are drowned out by the sheer mass of worthiness around them.

    Something similar seems afoot with those who strive foremost for individual sovereignty. Refusing to outsource your thinking or identity certainly minimizes the entanglements that might artificially inflate the value that a group brings to you. But it also seems to produce a built-in respect for others’ individual sovereignty as well, and that goes a long way toward reducing the amount of fecal flingery that passes for modern discourse (Claire’s observations are right on). That is: if you’re serious about your own sovereignty, it is in your conspicuous best interest to extend goodwill and courtesy to others, if for no other reason than to demonstrate by example how you, yourself would like to be treated. People being what they are, this does have an aggregating effect. (Hell, if nothing else, it can completely confound an authoritarian, especially if followed with a big smile.)

    Finally, there is a yin-yang dynamic at work in what I think is the real value of this “complexity” topic. I like looking at the world from the perspective of chaos theory (thanks to Butler Shaffer for turning me on to that idea). It’s not just complex, it’s impossibly complex…it’s…why, it’s anarchic chaos. Beautiful, natural anarchy governs the entire natural world and even the vast majority of our own daily lives…we are constantly adapting and spontaneously engaging in events which are not under the control or direction of any save our own, independent selves. Self-government in real time!

    It is exactly that impenetrable mass of complexity which so strongly suggests that we put our trust in our selves and in our immediate community (with whom we can deal directly), as mutual sovereigns, rather than in proxy agents entrusted with power and our implied blessing (hey, what could go wrong there?).

    (Yeah, in case you’re wondering, I do appreciate the irony that “this is how Kevin ‘simplifies'”.)

  5. tzo
    tzo February 10, 2010 3:17 pm

    Well said, Kevin.

  6. Claire
    Claire February 11, 2010 7:45 am

    Kent, I agree. But on the theme of complexity … it’s sometimes arguable whether somebody’s going your way or not. A classic (and current) case, the NRA:

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald

    Kevin, velly intellesting POV. True, the complexity argument has been hijacked. But true also that reality is complex and nuanced. For example, you say the zero aggression principle is simple. But haven’t we all heard freedomistas arguing endlessly and heatedly over what constitutes aggression? Sigh.

    In some counterintuitive way, simplicity lies beyond complexity (as smarter people than I have observed) … and I need to do some more thinking about that. And about your two comments on labels and groups, which have already got me noodling for a future post.

  7. Claire
    Claire February 11, 2010 7:59 am

    Dan Perkins … Good comment. You’re right. We do have our hot-button issues, and issues on which we’ve unbudgably made up our minds. (I can certainly think of five or six of my own …) I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, and there might be plenty good in that, as long as we can still talk civilly about it with people who disagree.

    Winston … ever articulate. Thanks. But as to comfort with abstractions … Hm. I think I’ll let you write that one. My impression is that most freedomistas are, if anything, so overly comfortable with abstraction that they forget to notice reality.

    But then, I might just be a cynic. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. Matt
    Matt February 11, 2010 8:56 am

    Life is simply, complex.

  9. Claire
    Claire February 11, 2010 9:45 am

    lol. You said it, Matt. I may have to quote you on that.

  10. Kevin Wilmeth
    Kevin Wilmeth February 11, 2010 11:21 am

    “Simplicity lies beyond complexity.” I like that – and not just because it’s more compact than what I could possibly manage. ๐Ÿ™‚ It’s got a yin-yang vibe to it which also supports the obverse idea.

    On a daily, practical level it seems to make sense to focus myself on what is, and let the abstractions induce themselves. A sort of “working simplicity” in the form of: pay attention to what is, and make no more of it than that.

    Which comes right back round to: great topic!

  11. Claire
    Claire February 11, 2010 11:57 am

    ๐Ÿ™‚ Thanks again, Kevin. Yeah, I’m not so good at being “compact,” either. Nor do I have a great gift for accepting daily reality and making no more of it than what it is. The old brain’s always churning.

    There’s a great quote about simplicity beyond complexity. I expect I’ll be using it very soon. In the meantime, I hope you don’t mind that I just took your name in vain — several times — in my most recent posting. You do have a way of getting me thinking …

  12. Kevin Wilmeth
    Kevin Wilmeth February 11, 2010 2:11 pm

    “In the meantime, I hope you donโ€™t mind…”

    Claire, if you fret about such things (and I know I would, if it were me), please, worry not. If that is your measure of taking someone’s name in vain, you’ve got nothing to worry about. And furthermore, I agree with you. You said it better than I could have, and I think you nailed it.

    “You do have a way of getting me thinking…”

    If I can reciporocate even a fraction of what you have done for me in this regard, I would consider it an honor. ๐Ÿ™‚

  13. Olin Mcsweeny
    Olin Mcsweeny February 11, 2010 6:11 pm

    First, thank you on your insightful post. I love your website and find it exceptionally instructive. I admire your ability of stating (by blogging) little things that other people never take any time to say. I found it while doing an enquiry on Bing and I positively will come back here when I have more time.Thanks

  14. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 12, 2010 10:18 am

    I was having a discussion with a woman on a homeschooling list when she tried to justify government involvement with everything under the sun, by saying “life is complex”. I said that on the contrary, life is actually very simple.

    I suppose we were both right, in a way. Life is so complex that government efforts to regulate and control it are doomed to fail, just as the Austrians say. And life is simple in the principles we use to guide us.

    I think of principles as landmarks or signposts. Every now and then as we travel through this impossibly complex life, we have to refer to them to make sure we are going in the correct direction. For example, if we think coercion and violence are bad (a very simple notion), have we taken care to eliminate it and avoid it in our day to day affairs?

  15. Dennis Lee Wilson
    Dennis Lee Wilson February 14, 2010 11:31 am

    Claire said: ” For example, you say the zero aggression principle is simple. But havenโ€™t we all heard freedomistas arguing endlessly and heatedly over what constitutes aggression? Sigh.”

    Sigh, indeed. The same happens among “Objectivists” who swear by Galt’s Oath and in the next breath, embrace the numerous wars of the Empire.

    In some peoples’ minds, moral principles such as Galt’s Oath and the Non-Aggression Principle just never make it into their actual day to day life. That is why I was so enthusiastic when I discovered L Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent. It created an excellent statement of interpersonal relationships based on both of those moral principles.

    And the Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize. I discovered that I could neither add anything new to it, nor take anything away from it.

    (I have collected articles about the Covenant at
    http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?board=6.0 )

    Indeed, “simplicity lies beyond complexity”.

  16. White Sun - The Living Examples
    White Sun - The Living Examples February 16, 2010 6:34 am

    […] […]

Leave a Reply