![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Two Sides to Every Story
On Fear, Love and False Dichotomies
Donnie Darko: Ling Ling finds a wallet on the ground filled with money. She takes the wallet to the address on the driver’s license but keeps the money inside the wallet.
I-I’m sorry Mrs. Farmer. I don’t get this.
Kitty Farmer: Just place an X on the Life Line in the appropriate place.
Donnie: No, I mean I know what to do, I just don’t get this. You can’t just lump things into two categories. Things aren’t that simple.
Kitty: The Life Line is divided that way.
Donnie: Life isn’t that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you’re not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can’t just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
Kitty: If you don’t complete the assignment you’ll get a zero for the day.
This is just one of many excellent scenes in the now classic movie, Donnie Darko. It illustrates in stark terms one of the most common of human tendencies: breaking things into simple binary equations: on-off, left-right, male-female, love-hate, rich-poor, etc. We hear this in the expression, “there are two sides to every story.” And we see the same thing echoed all over from media and other intellectual sources when we hear a debate framed from two opposing perspectives.
Whether it’s maliciously done or not, it seems like there’s hardly an important issue in today’s society that doesn’t get drawn out according to this strict linear axis of for and against, though the terms get jumbled sometimes to make it seem like there is no negative option: pro-choice, pro-life, family values, gay rights, freedom, security, etc. Politics is simply littered with these types of simplifications, as they seemed designed to break diverse groups of opinions down to very basic emotionally-laden arguments.
I’ve also wondered in the past if what we consider as dissent isn’t actually an anticipated reaction, which is designed to set up these false dichotomies, then discredit masses of people by lumping them in with “conspiracy theories” and the like. I don’t have a solution to this dilemma, but I tend to think that “the system” thrives on stripping complex issues of complexity and setting up these linear yes/no lines of reasoning. The focus of conversations turns into whether or not someone agrees with it, and with which side they ally themselves with. It becomes an emotional, status and identity game instead of a possibly more intellectual analysis of the good, the bad and the long term effects of different types of issues and how they play out in society. In some sense, I wonder if it almost doesn’t matter whether or not we “agree” with something going on in the world today. It matters a great deal more what we do with that feeling of agreement or disagreement, with the connections we make and with the false linear dichotomies that we join together to create more accurate and complex depictions of life…
- Male Spirituality
- Play & Shared Context
- Baby, Can You Feel My Chi?
- Palestinian Terrorism Video Game
- Cell Phone Spermicide
- Prev: Food For Thought
- Next: Everything Is Under Control
August 29th, 2006 at 11:00 am
You’re in Pynchon territory now: the excluded middle, “binary” thinking, the metaphor of Maxwell’s Demon applied to humanity… Read “The Crying of Lot 49″ and enjoy the paranoia.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:09 am
In case you don’t have time to read the slender Pynchon novel, here’s an excellent breakdown:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/lot49/
It is exceedingly relevant to your post.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
The Crying of Lot 49
http://www.innternet.de/~peter.patti/thomaspynchon-thecryingoflot49.htm
August 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
So true! By eliminating options, politicians (or whoever really makes decsions) prevent us from actually thinking any rational thoughts.
Sadly, it works…
August 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
From my side of the Atlantic, this seems like an American thing. Over here - Europe - we seem to thrive on moral ambiguities and included middles.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I don’t know Tim, after posts like this one, I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion…
It seems to me that some dark, dangerous, and chaotic unconscious force is always the winner when things get broken down into this black-or-white way of thinking. I picture Leviathan rubbing his hands greedily, knowing the battle is going his way.
It also reminds me of Coke vs. Pepsi, the most notorious of all one-side-or-the-other battles (at least for me). The funny part is — whoever loses, they both win. By that I mean, all they want is people to pick a side and become a fan of soda. Think about it — as a Coke (or Pepsi) fan — how often do you have a choice, should you want such a beverage? Most of the time we’re a slave to what’s put on our plate (or in the soda machine).
August 30th, 2006 at 3:30 am
This posting reminded me of a fun incendent here in the hometown of Vancouver BC. Our premier was loudly decried and defamed and all that by our gblt community for not attending this year’s pride parade. He was called a homophobe, and accused of hating gay people, and all that…
Because he had a task to do (I believe it was a commerce/trade meeting) that was more important than a parade, he wasn’t assumed to be busy, or unavailable - no, he was anti-pride, and shoud be hated for it.
I thought it was a very amusing side to much of N. America’s dealing with minorities and special interest groups like the glbt community - if you aren’t actively supporting and holding their hand all the time, if you are absent for something else - the play the guilt-and-shame card, saying you’re “against them”. It has reached the point where people feel bad if they can’t make this pride event, or that cultural festival.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Funny, because those same people probably felt quite superior back in the day, pointing out the complete idiocy of Dubya telling Canada (and everyone else) “You’re either with us or against us.” Oh the delicious hypocrisy…
September 1st, 2006 at 9:23 am
HILARIOUS — skip wiley, i was just about to doubt tim’s commitment to sparkle motion, but you beat me to it !
September 1st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Holy shit! You’re right! I never realized that before. The only time you have a choice between Coke or Pepsi is when you go into an actual shop to buy soda. When you are out at a restaurant, you will order “A Coke” and the waitress will reply, “Pepsi okay?” And you say, “Sure!”