taking sides

When I was in university I took a course in diplomacy. A course that went into the depths and breaths of how to manage warring factions, competing interests and other arbitration matters. It was a popular course, I think for two reasons. One, the lecturer was top notch- for the discerning and the privvy, she's a student of the great John Rawls. And secondly, it was an interesting course: you got to study old but landmark cases, learn the innings and outs of this tenuous game that politicians and statesman have been playing since the beginning of man's quest for power. We went through diplomacy-dispute models, looked at negotiation strategies and discussed and debated the ethics, gamesmanship and endgames of diplomacy.

The thing with diplomacy is: there never is a right or wrong side. There is no such thing as a win-win outcome; not really anyway. Its either one side concedes some part or the other; or parties get stymied in the endless rounds of discussions and offers, more discussions and counteroffers that really, no one really goes anywhere. And with most diplomatic endeavors, there usually is a negotiator, an arbiter or sorts, if you will, who does his darndest to balance the yin and yang of the whole situation.

But here's the real truth. First, these negotiators have an agenda, which is really ok because it'd be nice to reap the benefits of a amicable settlement between parties. Second, these negotiators have a side they prefer, even if the preference is slight, unconscious and perhaps out of loyalty of one party over another. Third, these negotiators need to convince everyone involved that they are truly neutral, that much as they might stand to gain with a favourable outcome, they really are not rooting one over another.

Let's face it. We are humans with nuances, feelings and the ability- some say disability- to make some sort of cognitive, emotional evaluation for ourselves in any situation. We might think we really can't decide, but the fact is we are all born with innate preferences, inclinations and beliefs. Much as we like to think we are really capable of being neutral. Come on, even parents' have favourites. And so we try. We try to sit on the fence. We try to be everyone's friend. We try to make nice-nice. We try to remain impartial. In matters that are sometimes fact-based, largely emotion-driven, surely didactic and dynamic and always with never sufficient information.

You see, my friends, therein lies the rub: we can do our best to stay impartial. To not take sides, to sit on the fence, to kick it into neutral gear. We can convince ourselves, even, that we are doing one heck of a job. But to not take sides is to take a side. To not make a choice is to make a choice. To stay neutral, stubbornly outside of the killzone is hardly a guarantee that you'd be spared the visages of battlement... however good your intent.

I remember a verse that suggests we be either hot or cold, but never lukewarm lest God spits you out of His mouth (Rev 3:16). This was, of course, said in relation to being passionate or dispassionate about God. But I think it applies to our lives as well.

I've picked a side: have you?