Issues & Observations: Principle-Driven Conflicts

Wilfred H. Drath

Leadership is a process we frequently use to bridge differences, to solve problems constructively. But leadership often fails to resolve conflicts and solve problems rooted in principles. In America's past, for example, cherished principles on either side were set against each other in the Civil War. Problem solving was done the old-fashioned way: war. More recently, powerful principles clashed in the civil struggle over the war in Vietnam. The scars linger. Equally noble principles support either side in the rancorous standoff over abortion. The stalemate over gays in the military was likewise a result of principled points of view. In all these cases, our ability to solve the problems appears to have been paralyzed. Increasingly we fear these problems will be solved by resort to one of the oldest and saddest of human choices: violence.

As much as we believe in the necessity of principles (what we might call the principle of principles), our way of relating to them might be a major cause of our troubles, and a major obstacle to effective leadership. In principle-driven conflicts, such as the ones already mentioned, each side typically attempts to claim the principled position for itself alone, while characterizing the other side's position as being based on expediency or irrationality.

In the abortion issue, for example, note that each side has a more or less subtle understanding of its own position and tends to parody the other position.

What seems important here is that in conflicts of this kind, leadership appears to be confined within the positions. There is leadership within the pro-life movement and within the pro-choice movement, but there is no leadership across those positions.

Why should this be so? Why couldn't some leader or some process of leadership influence both sides to work toward bridging their differences?

To explore why leadership so often fails to bridge differences in these kinds of conflict, we need to go another step. Let's assume that we place a higher value on principles than we do on resolving conflicts or solving problems. As civilized humans, we believe in steadfast principles. They are part of our humanity. We must honor and stand by them. True, we also believe in the value of solving problems, but we are suspicious of anyone asking us to solve a problem by compromising our principles. We would rather fight. Some things are even worth dying for. So, principles are above problem solving.

I want to suggest, however, that this cherishing of principles at all costs is characteristic of a certain worldview— a way of thinking about the world and our place in it—that not only makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for leadership to bridge differences, it is also rapidly becoming dangerous and destructive of human society.

It is a way of thinking characterized by blindness to others. In this way of thinking, principles are not something one has; they are something one is. In this way of thinking, principles define self, and therefore define what is us. Because of this, we are unable—not just unwilling but actually unable—to see what is not me or not us. We can get only an approximation of the other through our own characterizations, which usually involve stereotyping, parody, or even ridicule. These characterizations are crafted within, and according to, the system of our selfdefining principles. We cannot therefore recognize leadership from outside self or us. Anything resembling leadership from outside our self-defining systems is interpreted as an insidious attack on our principles (that is, on our self).

This analysis, abbreviated though it may be, does suggest a different way of thinking about the world and our place in it, and this in turn suggests a different way of dealing with principles. In this different way of thinking, principles would be something we have, and they would cease to be something we are. They would cease to define us, and we would stop fearing that in modifying our principles we would lose our selves. We would hold principles, not be held by them. This would enable us to recognize that since we can have principles, others can also have principles. We would see that it is not principles that make us and them; rather, it is our relationship to our principles that creates the seemingly unbridgeable divide.

Am I merely substituting my principle here for all other principles? I say no. I am suggesting a different way of viewing principles, including the one I am offering here.

The biggest impact of this shift in worldview would be to make principles and values relative to context. Let me repeat, because I can already hear people howling out there. Principles and values would lose their absoluteness. They would be tools, not identity. We could reflect on them in ways we cannot now do, such as considering our principles in light of their principles. We could make decisions about principles we cannot now make.

A Different Way of Viewing Principles

Does this way of looking at principles imply that every principle is equally valid or right? Again, I say no. Our sense of right or wrong would not change. It is the reflex assertion of rightness or wrongness (based on identification with principles) that would fall by the wayside. Treating our principles as tools (something we have, not something we are) need not lessen our commitment to using these tools to guide our actions.

With such a change in worldview, we might be able to create leadership across cultural, intellectual, economic, and political divides of all kinds. This could dramatically increase our power to solve the problems that face us. Some will say that we would become immoral with such a worldview. Yet, if this worldview resulted in fewer wars, fewer intractable struggles, and a greater ability (not just the will) to work together to solve our mutual problems, we might become more moral, at least in practice if not in theory. As the world becomes more globally related, it is not just trade, or business, or technology that must change. The process of leadership must also change. But for leadership to change, our minds must change.