Image by Stephanie Lepp

Written by Stephanie Lepp (Center bias).

My first experience with political activism was completely alienating.

I was a freshman in college, and I joined the Redwood Action Team at Stanford (RATS) for a city council meeting in Mendocino — a coastal town north of San Francisco. We were there to protest the logging of the Northern California redwoods. 

At the time, an environmental activist named Julia Butterfly Hill was living in one of those redwoods. We called her on a cellphone, and she gave us a pep talk, on speaker, from her redwood tree.

It was all very exciting…but I noticed something strange.

I noticed that the people we were protesting against looked like very humble people. They were loggers with their families, and they looked like migrant workers. And I thought to myself, I don’t want to be on the opposite side of those people. I want to be on the same side as the trees and the people. The way these lines are drawn doesn’t make sense to me.

That was the end of my involvement with RATS, and for a while, with politics. 

That was also the beginning of my fascination with integrating different perspectives — which eventually led me to AllSides, and recently led me to create Faces of X.

Faces of X is a series of short videos that integrate different perspectives on divisive social issues. The following essay uses my creative journey with Faces of X to explore the power of synthesis.

. . .

Throughout history, thinkers from Ancient Greece to China have practiced the art of contemplating different perspectives, in order to find a more comprehensive view. But in America today, we can hardly interact with different perspectives, let alone integrate them. Our viewpoint diversity has become seen as a weakness, rather than a strength. 

The internet often gives us binary choices: pro-vax or anti-vax. Pro-choice or pro-life. Woke or anti-woke. Choosing one or the other leaves insights off the table. Vaccines shouldn’t be taken always, nor should they be taken never, so the question isn’t “pro-vax or anti-vax?” but “under what circumstances should vaccines be taken?” With respect to abortion, most Americans don’t identify as purely “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” and instead favor abortion rights with limits. And with respect to wokeness, the oppressor-oppressed frame is critical and overdue, but not always the most relevant.

In response to binary thinking, there can be a reflexive both-sides-ism — which presents different perspectives as equally relevant or valuable, regardless of the evidence or ethical considerations. American media should be more balanced, but not in a way that creates false equivalence or obscures truth. The best solutions are not always halfway between extremes. AllSides’ editorial philosophy acknowledges, “While we strive to remain balanced, we do add some editorial bias of our own. We believe everyone is biased, including us, and it is important to be transparent about bias.” 

Meanwhile, in the so-called heterodox space, much “nuanced AF” thinking — in the words of incisive commentator, Meghan Daum — quickly devolves into knee-jerk contrarianism. Knee-jerk contrarianism has become a new orthodoxy, just as pernicious as the old orthodoxies. Someone I recently met at Pamela Paresky’s gathering of Thought Criminals actually called it “heterodox orthodoxy.”

At what point of cultural adoption does heterodoxy cease to deserve that label? We’ve learned how to do equal-opportunity criticism — critiquing both progressive and conservative viewpoints — but what about equal-opportunity praise? What about taking insights, no matter where they come from, and integrating them into a bigger picture — in a way that doesn’t devolve into superficial both-sides-ism? 

That would be truly nuanced AF.

That was precisely the challenge I faced in the redwoods: how to integrate the perspectives of the trees and the people, but without devolving into superficial both-sides-ism. And that’s precisely the challenge I take up in Faces of X.

. . .

Faces of X is a series of short videos that seek to integrate different perspectives on divisive social issues — like capitalism, gender, and race. First, each video “steel-mans” different perspectives on the issue. (Steel-manning articulates the strongest version of a perspective, as opposed to straw-manning, which articulates the weakest.) Then — in the triad of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis — each video attempts to integrate those arguments into a synthesis. Thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis are represented as three different characters, played by the same person.

Synthesis goes beyond both-sides-ism, because it engages with different perspectives without assuming they’re equal. Eventually, a synthesis becomes a new thesis in our evolving understanding of reality. 

So, how might we articulate a synthesis perspective on capitalism? Let’s take a look. Liv Boeree — game theory expert and host of the Win-Win podcast — stars in Faces of Capitalism:

Here’s the key section from the synthesis (2:56-3:24):

Capitalism is the most extraordinary engine of economic growth we’ve ever seen. And, its benefits have not come for free. It’s not that capitalism is evil, just partially blind. It’s great at maximizing profit, but that comes (in part) by externalizing costs. And those costs have always been high, but now they’re globally existential. Which means: it’s time to change the game.

And now, we increasingly can change the game, because of capabilities that capitalism enabled us to build — like for example: closed-loop production systems, and platforms for decentralized coordination.

In other words, capitalism has brought us to a terrifying and miraculous point at which: humanity must change, and is newly able to change.

The point is not that capitalism has upsides and downsides, which would be akin to both-sides-ism. The point is that capitalism’s downsides are bringing us to the brink of self-destruction, but its upsides are what’s enabling humanity to move on. 

Similarly, how might we articulate a synthesis perspective on gender? Faces of Gender stars Buck Angel — speaker, entrepreneur, and sex educator who underwent one of the first FTM transitions. For decades, Buck has been at the center of the most hotly debated aspects of trans identity and its relationship to biological sex. And in that time, he’s been canceled by the progressive young trans community for questioning youth medical transition and highlighting de-transitioners. 

In Faces of Gender, he acknowledges that he has been harsh, but because he cares about the safety of trans youth. His words attempt to integrate progressive insights into a synthesis view:

Here’s the key section from the synthesis (4:21-4:44):

I think we’d all love for everyone to feel comfortable in their bodies. But the truth is: no one feels comfortable 100% of the time – especially not teenagers. There will always be people for whom gender transition is the right path. And — to the extent that we create a culture where more people feel more comfortable in whatever body they inhabit — that path will be chosen with greater confidence.

The point is not that gender transition is not the right path for everyone, which is obvious to the point of unhelpful. It’s that we must create conditions where the choice to transition is influenced less by social media-driven body insecurity and healthcare-driven over-medicalization, and more by people’s actual sovereignty and self-dignity — which might make gender transition a less common choice.

The first release of Faces of X includes capitalism, abortion, gender, and race. But the potential pipeline is infinite. I’d love to produce Faces of Guns, Faces of Feminism, Faces of Artificial Intelligence, and more. What Faces of X video would you love to see?

Or perhaps better yet, what video would you love to make? If you’re so bold, the methodology for writing Faces of X scripts is here.

. . .

Like anything, synthesis can be weaponized. Some perspectives are inherently un-integrate-able. ‘Abortion never’ and ‘abortion always’ don't play well with other perspectives. Other perspectives are morally unwelcome. A meaningful synthesis on race isn't between anti-racism and racism, but between the anti-racism proposed by Ibram X. Kendi and the color-blindness proposed by Coleman Hughes. We must be discerning about which perspectives we’re integrating, and how we frame the sides of the debate.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that one side is entirely right. It’s also unlikely that all sides are equally right. It’s more likely that most of us are partially right, but some of us are more right than others. That doesn’t make for a great tagline, but it avoids the pitfalls of tribalism and both-sides-ism in pursuit of the most comprehensive view. Our view will always be partial, and we can always strive to see more faces of reality.

It is said that the root cause of our interrelated crises is: our inability to see reality as a whole. It’s our inability to see that our department stores are stocked amazingly…due to sweatshop labor and polluted air, and that the values of choice and life…give each other meaning. We live in a media environment that divides us into warring tribes, and fragments reality into seemingly disconnected parts. Our media environment was itself developed by a fragmented consciousness that prioritizes short-term profit at the expense of other values. In its own small way, Faces of X seeks to cultivate our capacity to perceive the wholeness of reality.

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, 'It’s an optical delusion of consciousness to believe there are separate things. There’s one whole that we call ‘Universe,’ and our task is to develop our capacity to perceive it.'

. . .

Since my experience in the Mendocino redwoods, I’ve returned to politics. I’ve returned because I now have a way to put people and trees on the same side — by steel-manning their perspectives and integrating them into a more comprehensive view.

The next time you’re arguing with someone about some hot political issue, consider: under what circumstances is what the other person is saying true? What if your views are not completely clashing, but somehow complementary? How might you integrate your views to create a bigger picture?

Watch the Faces of X series, and share it with someone you’d love to find synthesis with: www.facesofx.org. 

Common Ground, Activism