Political Parties

I generally do not talk politics with anyone.  However, when reading about intergroup paradoxes I could only think of our two party political system.  I wonder if any of our leaders ever read Smith and Berg’s Paradoxes of Group Life?

The paradox of scarcity is overwhelming apparent when looking at budget debates.  Instead of being able to focus on the good of the whole, parties and lobbying groups can only see what they are getting and what is being taken away from them.  No matter the size of the resources, they are viewed as inadequate; hence the need to increase taxing or borrowing in order to fund all the various group interests.  Smith and Berg described this as a self-referential circularity (p. 186), wherein action that solves one problem creates another.

Then there is the paradox of perception.  The struggle here is for groups to understand the necessity of other group’s goals, values and tasks as it relates to the viability of the whole.  Unsuccessful management of this paradox is manifested by the inability to integrate - bringing unique parts together to make a stronger whole.  Sometimes I think different group members are not really sure what they stand for other than being “anti-other.”  There is rarely an affirmative light burning anywhere.  There is certainly no trust or disclosure.  

These concepts of differential access to resources and inability to view the whole result in power struggles.  The intergroup paradox of power is seen when the group not currently in power views their position as absolute powerlessness.  This extreme polarization of “haves” and “have-nots” creates unhealthy conflict.  Such conflicts require leadership that is courageous, creative and inspires acceptance and interdependence.  Besides leadership, a larger external threat can positively influence intergroup dynamics; as was seen in our country immediately post 9/11.    That external threat served as a cohesive factor between all types of groups, blurring the lines of creed, color, and values, albeit briefly.  While I realize we do not live in a utopian society I do believe we need to learn to work better together, for the good of the whole.  I liked this illustration Smith & Berg used (p. 196): 

Differences in values can coexist in mutually enriching ways, as in the case of melding music and drama in the production of musical theater.  This does not mean that the tension created by the differences in values disappears; rather, it is out of these tensions that the overall fabric of the production is created, generating an outcome not possible within the medium of either music or drama alone. 

The Lesson of the Jersey

This post I thought I would share something that has helped jell all these paradoxes of group life in my mind. 

Recently I was reading an essay that my son wrote about the benefits of being on his high school football team.  He talked about the numerous life lessons that being on a team can afford.  One comment that he made illustrated the paradoxes of group life very well.  He explained that coaches often look for team members that are as dedicated to the name on the front of the jersey as they are to the name on the back of the jersey.    How true!  If a team member is only concerned with himself, the name on the back of the jersey, the team will suffer.  Likewise, if a team member is fixated with the team, the name on the front of the jersey, and not committed to improving himself, the team will also suffer.  Each team member must work hard at becoming the best he can individually so he can contribute his best to the team effort.  It is not that the name on the front is more important than the name on the back of the jersey.  They are both equally essential to the task of having a successful season.  Smith and Berg explain this paradox of belonging.  The contributions of each individual enable a team too efficiently and effectively operate.  A good thing to remember when working on a team is to be equally dedicated to the name on the back as well as the front of your jersey!