2.2 My Understanding of "Principled Centrism"--A Key To This Website
Since “principled centrism” is one of the key concepts that informs my evaluations of the resources on this website, it’ll be helpful for you to see some basics of my understanding of it. I’ll first define it typologically using a geometric analogy, and then give two concrete sets of examples--one from the current political scene and one from the history of philosophy--which should help to clarify it.
Sometimes two or more concepts are essential for a subject, yet are in tension with one another. When that’s the case, the choices of how to deal with the tension can be categorized as two basic types: (1) primarily “either/or” and (2) primarily “both/and.” (I’m using the term “primarily” here, because in the concrete world of particular subjects this ideal typology is like a scale or grid where the multiple concepts are almost never perfectly balanced in the middle, on the one hand, or totally exclusive with one extreme chosen and the other rejected, on the other.)
|
(1) The primarily “either/or” choice results from one of the concepts/values being defined and evaluated as the supreme value by far, reducing the other concepts to dangers to be dominated, if not "demons to be eliminated." The consequence of this is extreme polarization and uncivil culture wars. Centrisms in this “either/or” context end up being superficial at best or vacuous at worst. That’s because the people who want to get the warring groups to have a truce by finding some supposed “common ground” end up just watering down what have been defined as basically incompatible concepts to the point where they’re unrecognizable.
|
Using a geometric analogy, the “either/or” choice is like the picture below. The two circles represent the two concepts/values in tension (e.g., two important ones for this website--freedom and equality). As an ideal type, one concept is totally valued to the exclusion of the other, represented by two exclusive circles, each having only one focal point at their respective centers. In real life, the one circle, which is valued almost exclusively, usually has at least a small overlap with the other one, so that it appears to be included and have a little value. However, for either/or extremists it is usually so totally defined on the basis of the dominant value that it ends up being basically unrecognizable to those on the other side who value it most highly. |
(2) The primarily "both/and" choice results from multiple concepts related to the subject being defined and evaluated as essential to dealing with a subject in a healthy way. Centrism in this "both/and" context is “principled” when one focuses the best of each of the multiple concepts (seen in the light of the best of the others), and at the same time works to deal with their perceived negatives (usually generated whenever they are mistakenly defined in isolation from the others--as in extreme either/or positions).
In this process of trying to honor the positive, essential parts of each concept, surprising combinations of new definitions and valuations of the concepts are often generated. Each person develops her/his unique centrist position--not just throwing old interpretations together in ways that don’t cohere, but rather letting the concepts synergistically interact (to use an apt biological metaphor) in the creation of a brand new viewpoint on a subject, one where the multiple concepts are coherent (even though still in some tension) and thus one to which one can commit in principle. |
Using a geometric analogy again, the “both/and” choice is like the drawing below. The two concepts are represented by the two foci of an ellipse. Both foci are essential to the identity of the whole (by definition, the circumference of an ellipse is formed by the equal sum of the two lengths from the foci, as demonstrated with two pins, a piece of string and a pencil, below.) This is a good way to “picture” the fundamental difference between the two kinds of centrism. Arguing that “both/and” ways and “either/or” ways are fundamentally the same is like trying to force ellipses to be circles. Thus, “principled centrism”cannot be equated with “superficial centrism” as is all too often claimed. |
It's important to note that this is an ideal type of a perfectly balanced centrism with each concept--e.g., freedom and equality--equally weighted in value. The closer one comes to that ideal, the closer one is to being at the exact center of a left/right spectrum for those concepts. In real life situations, however, one concept almost always carries more emphasis than the other (in many cases, much more), and that means one is center-left or center-right on the spectrum with respect to those concepts.
(Click this button for the next page, which provides two examples of principled centrism.)
|