|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Divisiveness
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The word 'divisive' has been used a lot over this last week, especially in referring to Baroness Thatcher. It has almost invariably been used as a negative quality - she brought divisiveness, she used divisiveness, etc..
I was wondering whether divisiveness is always actually a negative quality. Are there not times when brining division can be a good thing?
Jesus, I recall, was a divisive character - he said, @I come not to bring peace, but a sword.' and that he would divide families.
Paul said of course that among God's people there should be no division, but went on to say that division was necessary to show the difference between God's people and those who were not spiritual.
The Salvation Army was hauled into court ion numerous occasions in the 1880s because our marches were seen as divisive in the community and the riots we 'caused' were the inevitable result of our deliberate and divisive insistence on marching in the streets. The case was won by us when it was held that even though we knew what the outcome of our marches was to be, the riots were not our responsibility (seems to be exactly the opposite today when the results of provocative action is fairly and squarely on the person causing 'offence'.
Anyway, is divisiveness, even resulting from an action that is known to cause likely division, always a bad thing?
Can shipmates think of so-called divisive actions that actually had had a positive and laudable outcome?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Usually, when someone laments "divisivness" and praises "unity"(or some variation thereof), it's because he wants people to unify around HIM, or HIS ideas, and is upset because that's not happening.
If you disagree with a given consensus, but see that that consensus is starting to crack, with more people going over to your position, you're not likely to bemoan the divisiveness. You'll say something like "Well, finally, the public is coming to its senses" or "At long last, some healthy debate on the topic".
Basically, it comes down to whose ox is being gored, as the saying goes.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
And to answer your specific question...
quote:
Can shipmates think of so-called divisive actions that actually had had a positive and laudable outcome?
Well, unless one believes that all progress in history has resulted from someone making a good suggestion, and then everyone agreeing with it and leaping forth to put it into practice, I'd say that most of the "positive and laudable" things that have happened have come about with at least a bit of divisiveness.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It depends on whether the divisiveness challenges opinions in a healthy or an unhealthy way. Does it foster love or hatred, tolerance or intolerance of another point of view?
People will always be divided by opinion, wealth, cultural background, education, lifestyle habits, preferences, etc. If such divisions are seen as diversity and fellow human beings are embraced and cared for despite the differences, it's a good thing. If prejudices arise, hatred is fostered, and those different are seen as less than human, it's not.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
In any complex system involvIng lots of people in different roles, it seems likely that:
- the system is not operating optimally
- some of the ways to make it work better are "win-win solutions" where everyone gains
- conversely some ways to make it work better are "win-lose" where some particular group have to work harder or endure change or suffer some sort of loss in order to secure a collective improvement.
- if one restricts one's efforts to the subset of "win-win" solutions then the degree of improvement achieved is likely to be less.
If the slave trade had been tackled only In terms of "win-win" measures which increased the profits of the slave traders as well as improving conditions for the slaves, we might still be owning our fellow man...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One difficulty you failed to mention is the difficulty of discerning, in advance of implementation, which solutions will be win-win and which will be win-lose (or even lose-lose).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can shipmates think of so-called divisive actions that actually had had a positive and laudable outcome?
Paul and Barnabus famously argued over John Mark, to quite a "divisive" degree-- they parted company. Yet Luke takes care not tell us who was "right" as we might expect. He doesn't tell us if John Mark took off again mid-journey (ha! in your face, Barney, you gullible old fool) or if John Mark stayed the course and led thousands to Christ (take that, Paul, you hard-hearted old geezer). Instead he tells us that where once there was only one proposed missionary journey. now there will be two. The outcome does seem to have been positive and laudable.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
