by Derek—2004.06.03 @ 0838
It is a challenge when you see both sides of an issue, partly because it can put you at a stand-still -- a place of indecision, stalemate, and frustration. Sometimes seeing both sides doesn't compromise your position but gives you greater insight on how to better communicate your ideas to others. One thing I am learning is that you cannot let new information put you at an impass; you must move forward. The challenge is figuring out which path to take. Sometimes new information makes the decision easier, but the opposite is also true.
In the ongoing battle of individualism verses community there is a constant argument between "freedom" and "control." As an individual, you want freedom. Restraint keeps you from your goals, desires, and ambitions. Freedom allows you to go and do what you want. We have come to think of many "freedoms" as rights, some of which are protected by law, including speech and the exercise of religion. When two (or more) groups or individuals desire to excercise a certain freedom there is bound to be a conflict. We can't all be in the same place at the same time, nor can we all do exactly the same thing without confusion, commotion, or accident.
One of the most overlooked "freedoms" is control. Many people would consider this an oxymoron, however, we are "free" to control ourselves instead of being "acted upon." Most people recognize the conflict arrising when driving: if there was no control, there would be mayhem. As it is with personal (individual) freedom, many people abandon constraint (control) because it feels like you are being taken advantage of, or you are being manipulated. Sometimes we do not, or cannot see that control or restraint is actually benefitting the individual and the group.
The story of the kite is a classic example of individual freedom under restraint. With ample wind, a kite is taken into the sky. It appears that the kite will fly on forever, and there is a desire to let the kite go where it may. However, without constraint (the string) the kite might soar, but it would eventually falter and crash to the ground. Having a field of kites is another matter entirely. Each person must exercize a certain amount of control -- even extra control -- if the delicate ballet of hundreds of kites is to successfully fly. Since each individual wants to fly his or her own kite, it is only a success when moderated by a certain degree of personal control.
With the absence of personal control comes mandated control. Mandated (forced) control is what is most irritating to all individuals who desire freedom. It seems that personal freedom is being removed in place of some group desire. There is an apparent conflict between "majority" and "minority" access. One of the most overlooked pieces to this puzzle is that individuals make up a group, and without individuals, there would be no majority. It is easy to dismiss the majority as some kind of brain-washed, close-minded collection of groupies with no will of their own. However, when we can see them as individuals, we see them as ourselves.
Mandated control comes in the appearance of laws, rules, or commandments. Street signs, signals, and one-way access are all evidence of mandated (group) control. The irony is that each law, rule, or command is not there to limit personal growth, freedom, or liberty; it is there to moderate the needs of hundreds (or thousands) of individuals all vying for the same limited commodity.
One of the most challenging dilemmas is achieving the greatest individual output under the constraints of a work environment. At the office, you are likely constrained from installing your own preferred software unless there is a "business necessity", or some other excuse. You may be "forced" into using certain applications, operating systems, or even work environments (read: cubicles). Other limitations and constrains include budgetary or material considerations.
On one hand, our personal preferences, habits, and style have helped us meet or exceed expectations. Maybe they help us feel more productive or give us better flexibility. In any case, having our own say gives us our own freedom and autonomy.
From the office point-of-view, allowing too many personal liberties can introduce problems like viruses, SPAM, or other attacks. New software may also mean extra support, troubleshooting, or costly upgrades.
In my work as a designer, I have seen and experienced both sides. As a designer, I wanted more flexibility to acheive the greatest creativity. As an administrator, I knew the limits of the budget and had certain goals that needed to be met. As I've matured as a designer, I've realized that the best designs often come under restraint -- either externally or internally emposed. Discipline, constraint, and guidance -- while they can be irritations or feel like infringements on personal freedom -- are actually liberators, constructors, and enablers.
I think of the example of Apollo 13 which required the teamwork of hundreds of individuals to face a possible tragedy when a faulty component burst causing serious system damage. The constraints "force" individuals to consider possibilities previously unexplored or unseen, often by realizing their greatest success was working as a team. There were so many limitations that the task seemed impossible if not daunting.
Selfishness is one of the great crimes in America. The driving force of individualism without restraint, pursuing personal desires, has the odd effect of creating a very selfish society. We think about ourselves and put ourselves before anyone else. This becomes a problem on one had because we start forgetting that constrait is a personal liberty as we begin treading on other people. We forget that our individualism is only as great as the next person who is vying for the same commodity.
There is a story often used in conflict management involving an orange. Two sets of negotiators are lobbying for the same crop of oranges. Both corporations being represented need the oranges for nobel purposes: one needs the oranges for research into gene therapy with the possibility to save thousands of lives and improve countless others. The other company needs the oranges for stemming the AIDS crisis in Africa. What neither of them know is that one company only needs the orange peel and the other needs only the seeds.
Not every commodity can be as easily shared, but not every desire needs to be at the expense of another person or group. William H. Danforth was quoted as saying "our greatest treasures are those things when shared, multiply. Our least valuable treasures when shared, diminish."
The most challenging skill to master is the ability to see both sides of an issue; to truly see what the other person is seeing; to walk in their shoes. Seeing both sides doesn't mean giving up our own identity or desire, but it is one of the first steps at being selfless.