Beware the Binary

I have come to be very wary of anything trying to sort items into definitive piles, especially human beings. Life is usually more nuanced than that, and binary sorting is at the root of many failures. As an individual though, it can be a promising strategy to try to work the cracks between binary-sorted groups.

The law often needs to set exact limits. It would make no sense to have a speed limit of “something near” 30mph, or to set an age of consent of “round about” 18, or to allow a “few” chemicals into food. We need baselines for many things, and binary sorting provides those baselines.

Even these cases are interesting though, and in an ideal world would allow for some nuance. Speed limits ought to take full account of prevailing road conditions, grooming of someone just above consent age by someone forty years older with power is plainly abuse, and as science progresses safe levels of chemicals can be adjusted. A good judge will take account of such nuances, and good law will enable that. “Three strikes and you are out” is not good law – and we can see the ramifications around the US penal system.

It is usually much more helpful to think of things as on a spectrum, especially when dealing with people. A classic example is sexuality. Two generations ago, people were considered either heterosexual or homosexual. Such a binary sorting had many implications, all of them bad. A binary sorting made it tempting for the law, and churches, to equate one sexuality with normality and the other with perversion. That led to persecution, and it also prevented any rational discourse. Kids and their parents grew up in fear and ignorance. Millions of people led unfulfilled lives in the closet, and coming out become a ritual of fear.

Let us not overlook how recently this all changed. I admitted to a group a couple of weeks ago that the first time a guy I knew as gay tried to hug me was less than twenty years ago, and my reaction was to recoil and attempt a nervous handshake. That is a legacy of binary sorting.

The key to moving forward was not changing the law, but of acknowledging sexuality as a spectrum, or even a series of spectra. We can be a- or bi- or many exotic combinations, and most of us have the potential to reside on different places on the spectrum depending on many factors. At a personal level, this helped everyone get away from the fear and shame and ignorance, and at a societal level it enabled us to move forwards. Young people nowadays don’t simply respect differences, but they are able to experiment in a bid to understand their own bodies. Well done David Beckham and the early metrosexuals, you did us all a great service.

Only recently did I start to understand that similar logic applies to gender itself. I had thought this to be a true a binary sorting, barring rare genetic special cases. But the whole flowering of modern gender types has shown this to be an ill-informed position, and slowly society learns to accept this and even to welcome it. Perhaps over time marriage can cease to be a binary sorting mechanism as well.

Another terrible example is the historic treatment of mental health. Based on sparse tests and arbitrary cut offs, people used to be condemned to a hopeless life, taken out of regular schools and often housed in prison-like conditions. This still happens in some countries, and was prevalent in the UK less than 50 years ago. And because it was a binary system, it made terrible mistakes and took too long to challenge.

Questions of race, nationality and citizenship are still fraught today; indeed they drive the ugly politics that we see in many countries. Living in New York, it all seems so out-dated. Most people nowadays are some combination of races, and in another generation it will be even more. An immigrant is a technical definition, binary yet confusing and arbitrary. Those who rail against immigrants should reflect that the Native Americans are probably the only ones with any sort of claim; yet are treated as harshly as ever. The Windrush debacle is a good example of where binary sorting leads. On citizenship, residence and tax residence, I struggle with forms every year and even lawyers and accountants are probably guessing. It all starts with binary sorting, admittedly some small part of it necessary, but all of it divisive and inhibiting of progress.

Binary thinking is not as directly harmful as binary sorting, but maybe just as dangerous. Just because I am a liberal (in the US sense) does not mean I blindly agree with all Democratic platforms. The attitude to trade, the obstruction of progress of some unions, the rejection of nuclear energy and the promotion of litigious behaviour are examples of bad policy. But in a polarised world, especially in countries with two main parties (i.e. a binary system), such thinking is not facilitated. Indeed, people appear almost blind to the failings of their own side these days, which partly explains how Trump can seem to ride lie after lie, calumny after calumny, without consequence. In a binary system, the winning strategy is to link the opponent with something your supporters can demonise – then they become blind to everything else.

Another example may be taxation policy. We have reached a point where we have sorted into a binary world of those who always seek to reduce tax, all the time, and those who always seek to solve societal problems with extra spending. The reality must be that each side is right some of the time, on some issues, and that the evidence may change over time.  

It is worse in foreign policy, with its weasel talk of allies and coalitions and enemies and “sponsors of state terrorism”. Time magazine last week had a disgraceful article on Iran, wholly lacking in nuance or evidence. This all starts with binary positions. It should be noted that in the same week Saudi Arabia slaughtered many innocent Yemenis and Israel passed what looks suspiciously like an apartheid law. In a binary world, such indiscretions are too easily overlooked. Of course, religion may have the most original sin when it comes to binary follies. Think heaven and hell, absolution and mortal sin, or infallible popes – no healthy starting points there.

Binary sorting exists throughout education and professions. Again, some is necessary: I would not like to be operated on by someone who thought they might be a doctor; and an education system should allow for specialisation and selection. But the tests of these systems are their flexibility and their practical limitations.

In Germany and the Netherlands, kids are sorted at 11 into streams that are mainly academic or mainly vocational. This has much merit. The world needs nurses and welders, and many of them don’t need to know the full academic background for their jobs, only to be good practitioners. But eleven is a very young age to make such a drastic sorting. It might be messy, but more blended classes, and more opportunities to move from one group to another would be more equitable and lead to stronger outcomes.

In England, we persist with something less obvious but equally limiting. Medicine at Cambridge and Oxford has almost no practical component at all. This originated because “gentlemen” were never supposed to get their hands dirty. But the result is longer qualification times, wasted talent and doctors who may be brainy but who should never be allowed near a patient. It also leads to false hierarchies, arrogance and resistance to change.

In business, I frequently found opportunity in mining the seams between specialisms. The most obvious example was finance. In most companies, finance is an island. People inside have their own qualifications, language, career paths and practices. People outside are given little opportunity to develop financial acumen, and are viewed with suspicion by finance insiders. The result is obvious. In reality, almost every business decision is better informed by financial acumen, and the rare person who is not a finance specialist but is finance-literate has huge value, which only increases with seniority. Think of a CEO who knows nothing of finance; and then one who knows nothing but finance. Sadly, both examples are all too common.

This is only the most obvious of many such chasms. Technical people with commercial acumen and operational people who can run a team well are two other rare gems. I found that it was often swimming against the tide to become such a person, but that the reward usually made it worthwhile. I often lacked a home base in my career, yet I also often found that I had unique perspectives of value.

Rejecting a binary world can be lonely and challenging. Simplicity and certainty are always nice to have. But nuance and innovation are not served well by binary systems, and nor is equity. We will be better individuals and create a better society if we make a habit of challenging the binary.