Centered, Not Centrist: The Middle Way Out Of Tribalism

A countercultural movement that only begins when you do.

Demands that I “take a side” have long felt wrong to me. In high school, I recall being asked to choose a side and make an argument for nature or nurture, not for both. Is who we are based on our genetics and what we come into this world with? Or are we a product of our experiences?

I was shy and introverted, and at the time, I didn’t know how to voice my perplexity at the assignment. Looking back, I can see that what I wanted to ask was something like: Why is such a complex phenomena as human personality treated as though it has a single origin? If we agree there’s an interplay of both nature and nurture, wouldn’t we learn more from approaching this as an exploration rather than a debate?

Some 20 years later, I better understand just how deep our tendency to pigeonhole complex issues into simplistic dichotomies runs. It’s woven into the fabric of our political systems, our media, our language, and thus, our psyches. It may also stem from our evolutionary history and our tribal roots, where clear delineations between ‘us’ and ‘them’ were often necessary for our survival. 

However, we now live in the 21st century when one might think we’d have (or expect we should have) the capacity to welcome more nuance into our thinking, communication, and sense-making. And yet still–and arguably to growing degrees–we gravitate towards polarity. There is a strong pull, for instance, towards the slogan “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” which encapsulates the pressure to align with and parrot the views of the in-group.

Amidst this pressure to conform to groupthink, it’s an act of rebellion–and a trademark sign of many black sheep–to opt for nuance; what some might call a ‘middle way’.

The problem with our binary thinking about complex issues is that it keeps us locked in cycles of war—whether literal war, political war, social war, or psychic war. It’s a war-based mentality that fuels division, close-mindedness, and conflict, and that keeps us from getting to the truth of matters. For example, consider the way that politicians speak about their opponents (even that we call them ‘opponents’ is telling). You’d be hard-pressed to find an example of a politician giving credit where credit is due to someone on the other side of the political aisle. The result is willful ignorance of valid points made and actions taken by opposing parties, which holds us back from understanding, honesty, and collaboration.

We can also find countless examples of this war-based mentality in public discourse related to social issues. Identity politics, for instance, pegs individuals as part of either an oppressed group or an oppressor group, neglecting the complexity of individual experiences and, ultimately, perpetuating ignorance, misunderstanding, and conflict. Similarly, we live in a social climate where people are quick to assign labels to those who hold opinions they don’t agree with, even if those labels don’t convey the complexity a person holds. For instance, where there is a suffix ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ assigned to any individual or group, we should pause and consider if the label genuinely encapsulates the truth of their perspective.

But despite these pressures to adhere to the views of a clear-cut side (or to assume that others adhere to the totality of any given side), there is that ‘middle way’ that tugs at us—if we’re willing to open our minds and see the bigger picture.

This idea of the middle way is nothing new. One place we find its roots is in Buddhism, where the Middle Way (majjhimā-paṭipadā) refers to a path taken between two extremes. Originally, it referred to a middle path between extreme asceticism and sensual indulgence, but as time has progressed, the concept is frequently applied to any dualistic pair.

“A path taken between two extremes” is a reductive definition of the concept, as scholars note that the Middle Way doesn’t change according to shifts in the position of either of two sides. In other words, it’s not about compromise and it doesn’t blow with the winds of social weather patterns. Rather, as Jack Kornfield writes, the Buddhist Middle Way seeks a middle ground between attachment and aversion. Attachment and aversion are described in Buddhism as two causes of our human suffering, keeping us bound in cycles of reactivity.

Instead of perpetually chasing what we want and running from what we don’t want, the middle way helps us cultivate equanimity amidst life’s complexity.

While the entirety of Buddhism may not be for everyone, anyone can apply this concept to the landscape of our modern times. It invites people to embrace ‘both/and’ as opposed to the rigidity of ‘either/or’—a path of nuance that is grounded in principles and peace as opposed to politics and polarization.

This way of moving through the world is not one of indifference or unwillingness to take a stand; in fact, it can itself be perceived as extreme. For example, if two sides of a duality have reverted to aggression or hatred, the person who takes the ‘middle way’ is not actually standing in between the two. Rather, they are firmly rooted outside of the drama that’s unfolding, unwilling to be drawn in by the magnetic self-righteousness of either pole. From the point of view of either side, the position of the ‘middle way’ would appear extreme as it refuses to adhere to the rules of the societal game.

Someone who walks a true ‘middle way’ must therefore be deeply anchored in guiding principles in order to remain steadfast amidst social or political tides. As a Coming to Peace Facilitator trained to hold conflict resolution circles for groups small and large, I refer to the principles set forth by Isa Gucciardi, founder of the Coming to Peace conflict resolution model. 

Gucciardi outlines nine core principles that must be maintained by the facilitator and all participants of a conflict resolution process in order to effectively resolve whatever conflict is at hand. Those principles are:

• equality

• mutual respect

• honesty

• commitment to personal responsibility

• compassion

• tolerance

• patience

• willingness to engage

• cultivation of inner wisdom.

It’s not hard to identify numerous ways in which our society has lost its connection to principles like these. Personal responsibility is frequently replaced with blame. Tolerance is preached by many, yet in practice isn’t adhered to when true differences emerge. And inner wisdom isn’t something we’re at all taught how to cultivate. Instead, we often take our cues from social norms and dominating narratives.

But despite the collective perpetuation of polarization, there is indeed a countercultural movement of people willing to embrace and explore this alternate way of being. It’s not easy to travel this middle road, as it often invites great pushback from those heavily attached to one side or another. Despite it being a path of peace and reconciliation, it’s not always perceived that way.

One possible explanation for such resistance is that by choosing to reject association with a clearly defined political or societal pole, opting instead to see the bigger picture, we unconsciously shine a light on where another person may have put on blinders. In some ways, a person who has their heels firmly dug into one side of a conflict may be more triggered by someone on a middle path than by obvious opposition. When someone on one side of an extreme is met by an equal but opposing force, he or she can feel justified in their approach to the conflict; there’s an enemy to fight, after all. The person who walks the middle path, however, is an enigma, ultimately challenging black-or-white ways of thinking. That’s unsettling for those who prefer the comfort of unwavering self-assuredness to truth and nuance.

People who opt for this alternative way of relating to conflict will often be perceived as indecisive or indifferent, but this assumption is often far from the truth. They’re not hesitant about what’s right and what’s wrong; instead, they take time to explore the roots of any conflict and know that truth resides in shades of gray.

By cultivating the courage to walk the middle way, we challenge not just one side or the other, but the dance of conflict as a whole. By advocating for clear seeing, understanding, and a truth that encompasses the bigger picture, middle way walkers contribute to the de-escalation of conflict and the cultivation of peace. 

Instead of disparaging those who embrace complexity, it would serve our societies to recognize the power of those who are willing to break free from the pressure to think only within the confines of approved group narratives. If we ourselves are the black sheep in the way we think, we can serve ourselves by recognizing this immense strength and courage we hold. We’re not passive observers, but active contributors to a new paradigm.

I have been a participant in both paradigms, the old and the new. More and more, I become the person who stands with clarity, holding the nuggets of truth that each side advocates. However, I have also stood on either side of a battleground, condemning those who were my clear opposition and belittling those who stood in the center of the field. If I am honest with myself, it was during those latter moments that I was unwilling to recognize my own blindspots and the components of truth held by my ‘opponents’. 

This work of finding the middle path is for ‘us’ as much as it's for ‘them.’ Because chances are we’ve all had blinders on at one time or many, captured by narratives that fuel division and conflict. By reminding ourselves and others to embrace nuance and recommit to core principles that serve all of humanity, we challenge the status quo and strengthen our ability to embody the middle way.

So what principles do you live by or want to live by? What do you want to stay anchored in even amidst the sway of societal tides? These are simple points of inquiry we can begin with, trusting that as we deepen our connection to our inner compass, we illuminate a path for others to do the same.

By cultivating the courage to walk the middle way, we liberate ourselves from the delusion and suffocation of simplistic, dichotomous thinking. May we dare to see both sides, speak the nuanced truth as we see it, and be the bridges the world so desperately needs.