Learning to cope with ambiguity, complexity

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Each country has its own share of controversial issues. Indonesia has them, as does China, Iran and the United States.

But is it wrong to have controversies in one's society? Of course not. What is wrong is when we let these controversies remain unresolved, when we do not improve our understanding of them, and allow ourselves to remain locked in them.

Controversies come from different ways of perceiving moral or ethical aspects of life. Moralists, pragmatists, and opportunists have different ways of perceiving ethical and moral problems.

Moralists see things in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good and bad, with nothing in between. Pragmatists see the world differently. They see a gray area between black and white, a "neutral zone" between good and bad, an "uncommitted zone" between right and wrong.

The phenomena within this gray area defies simple judgment. In this gray zone a particular phenomenon can be good under certain circumstances, but can be bad under different circumstances.

Divorce, for instance, used to be considered a bad thing. But there are circumstances where divorce is considered better for all parties concerned, more preferable than maintaining a turbulent marriage which mentally tortures everyone.

For this reason, divorce is an issue that at times is best put within the gray zone.

Opportunists also see gray in moral issues, but for different reasons. To opportunists, any moral issue is first gray and can be turned at will into either black or white later on.

But while "ordinary" people find themselves in a gray zone by accident, opportunists are there by choice. They are there because they choose to defer their judgment about a particular moral issue, and wait until it becomes clear which opinion is more advantageous to them.

Asked, for instance, whether in their opinion there is really collusion in our Supreme Court, opportunists will never give an answer. They prefer to be indecisive, to be mute and stay in the gray zone for an indefinite period of time.

Our perception of what is good, right or noble and what is bad, wrong, and filthy is influenced by our values. It is this difference in values and value systems that creates different valuations and perceptions in life.

Should abortion clinics be allowed to operate openly and legally? Is the policy of constructive engagement adopted by ASEAN governments toward Myanmar a correct policy? Has our general election this time really been conducted in a fair, honest, free, secret, and democratic way? Can the use of military force to free hostages in Peru and Lima be warranted?

These are controversial questions, where one opinion is as good or as bad as the opposite one. This "confusion" will fade away only after we have acquired a clearer, fuller, and deeper understanding of the issues.

When we have reached that stage, we will have a better idea concerning the substance, the structure, and the history of each issue. As a result, we will be able to define more clearly the criteria by which to judge each issue, and develop more operational guidelines on how each of these issues should be analyzed and examined.

By that time we will reach a greater agreement among ourselves concerning the ethical or moral yardsticks that should be applied in addressing each of these questions. Without progress in our comprehension of these issues we will never be able to free ourselves from the grip of mutual distrust and disbelief.

Is improving our understanding of controversial issues really possible?

It is. The most recent example of how such understanding can be improved is shown by changes in attitude regarding drug use and euthanasia. Debates around these two issues are no longer characterized by boiling emotions and myopic hyperboles. Gradual ly debates around these two issues have become more and more enlightened.

Is the use of drugs legal or illegal? In Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the United States it is illegal. But in the Netherlands, it is neither black nor white. According to Ellen Goodman, it is "illegal, but available". This means that the use of drugs in general remains illegal, but that soft drugs like marijuana and hash are available in "duly licensed coffee shops" that dot the city of Amsterdam. The Dutch word for this situation is, according to Dr. Gerrit van der Wal, "gedogen", meaning "something between forbidden and permitted".

And what about euthanasia? In the Northern Territory, Australia where it was formerly legal, it has since been declared illegal. In the United States, it is still considered a controversial issue. Doctors assisting patients to end their life were prosecuted, but in the end declared not guilty. In Holland, this is another black or white issue, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case.

Euthanasia remains illegal in Holland, but doctors who follow careful guidelines may grant their patients' death wishes.

According to Dr. Bert Keitzer, in most cases doctors in Holland agree to help patients to end their own life only when there is expressed wish from the patient, and the request is expressed persistently and confirmed by a second physician.

It is also stated in the guidelines that the patient's sufferings must be unbearable, with no possibility of finding a cure. It is therefore the patient who asks for an end to their life, and not the doctor who suggests it.

According to Dr. Herbert Cohen, a retired Dutch family doctor, "euthanasia is not for export". In Goodman's opinion what is perhaps exportable from Holland is the Dutch tolerance for ambi guity, "that part of the Dutch dance of principle and pragmatism". This means tolerance for living in the ethical gray zone, accepting and grappling with the reality of complexity, instead of denying it.

It is in the willingness to tolerate ambiguity and to accept complexity, that the key to improved understanding of controversies lie. We must learn to respect different opinions, and be willing to compare them with our own with an open mind.

We must learn to comprehend complex problems in their original structure and context. We must learn not to coerce others to adopt our own position, and not to distort problems by oversim plifying them.

Learning to cope with ambiguity and complexity is the road to wisdom.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.