Last ABR, I argued that looking at our gathering/hunting ancestors is not the best way to imagine how human behaviours can or should be today or tomorrow. In this issue, I try to connect this with our decreasing competence in having meaningful conversations and collaboration with people who think very differently than we do:
The perennial debate between “competition” and “collaboration”, between “liberté” and “égalité”, between “market” and “common good” is simply a debate between two competing beliefs about what helps best to maintain our thriving culture as human beings.
Politics can either be in a deadlocked fight between these two beliefs, in a “winner takes all” mentality or a pluralistic effort to strike a balance between these views, to create a space for both of them to flourish in friendly competition rather than in deadly war.
I am a believer in the ‘collaboration” paradigm. But I am also a firm believer – although I sometimes have to remind myself – in the pluralistic paradigm that allows for competition as well as collaboration. The paradigm that requires us to try to understand what people in the other paradigm believe, instead of trying to convince them that they are wrong or simply not bother to talk with them.