Posted by
Doc Stephens on Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:47:43 PM
Many years ago, actually more than three decades ago, I read an article about "artificial dichotomies" by an author whose name long ago escaped my certain memory. My uncertain memory recalls that the author was Stafford Beer, but a search of his bibliography online does not verify this hunch. Nevertheless, artificial dichotomies are alive and well.
When we attempt to identify plants and animals we often use a dichotomous key which allows us to classify by making a choice between two alternatives. For example, we might be able to decide if a large white wading bird is a white morph of the Great Blue Heron or a Snowy Egret by noting whether the legs are yellow or black. Similarly, we can distinguish between a Banded Water Snake and a Water Moccasin by the shape of the pupil of the eye, round or vertical.
More commonly, we decide between two alternatives as if they were the only possibilities, or as if the two choices actually had a well defined difference. When they don't, it is an "artificial dichotomy." Most of the time, this is the case.
Have you stopped to consider the difference between a liberal and a conservative? Could you walk into a room full of people and classify them as tall or short? How about black or white? How about pro-choice or pro-life? How about rich or poor? Even such apparently obvious choices as Christian or non-Christian defy agreement, or even consensus. Of course one of the most famous artificial dichotomies is "black" or "white." Most decisions are nowhere even close to "black" or "white" and skin color is never "black" or "white."
We argue interminably about such things. At a recent political debate, the participants were quite agitated about who was a conservative and who was not. It is an artificial dichotomy. The differences are usually continuous rather than dichotomous.