Author ORCID Identifier(s)

Martin Zwick 0000-0002-7247-6636

Published In

Philosophy Today

Document Type

Post-Print

Publication Date

5-2026

Subjects

polarization, dyad, triad, Manichean, Daoist, horseshoe political structure, left vs right, moderate vs extreme, holism, intersectionality, dynamic systems theory, catastrophe theory, game theory, factor analysis

Abstract

In times of political polarization, we are well-advised to heed Spinoza’s injunction, “Not to lament, not to curse, but to understand.” Understanding can be facilitated by ideas about the archetypal structures of political choice. This paper offers a systems theoretic analysis of a set of such archetypes focusing solely on their structures and not advocating any specific political positions. The primary question that must be answered is whether available or desirable political choices are dyadic or triadic, and if dyadic, whether the two alternatives of the dyad should be viewed as good versus bad or as complementary.  Various modes of polarization are illustrated by locating two or more positions on a line, horseshoe, or circle. Positions are also understood as macro choices that bundle multiple micro choices, where different bundling options are in principle possible and where bundling is subject to structural change and even reversals. It behooves us to grasp the structures of the political situations that we face to avoid making intellectual and/or moral mistakes.

Rights

Copyright 2026 The Author

Description

This is the accepted manuscript of an article to be published in Philosophy Today. Summer of 2027.

Persistent Identifier

https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/44706

Share

COinS