Dave’s Deconstructions: Unity
For my inaugural installment of Dave’ Deconstructions, a little segment in which I deconstruct concepts that strike me as relevant and/or fascinating, I’ll turn to the inaugural address for inspiration. In his inaugural address, President Biden set “unity” as the theme of the day. Since then, the concept of “unity” has been the centerpiece of national civic discourse. While we don’t know yet whether unity will ever return to fashion (or if it ever was in fashion) I find it refreshing we’re at least considering it.
Since unity can mean different things in different contexts, lets start with the context of origin: Biden’s inaugural address. He used the word eight times in his speech, and I’ll paraphrase what he said about it using his original terminology as much as possible:
“Unity” sounds foolish, and it’s one of the most elusive things about Democracy. But we need it to overcome our challenges. Without it there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. With it we can do great things, important things. Unity is the path forward.
It sounds as if unity is a great tool that could solve a lot of problems if we work together and use it correctly. But if unity is a state of state of being rather than a process, then it’s simply a goal rather than a means of attaining that goal. Which is it? Let’s check in on Merriam-Webster:
1A: The quality or state of not being multiple: ONENESS.
2A: A condition of harmony: ACCORD
3A: The quality of state of being made one: UNIFICATION.
Unity is a quality, condition, or state of being. It’s not a path forward at all, it’s a destination (path not included). If it’s not the process, what is? Merriam Webster does have some clues for us. The first aspect of unity that catches my eye is “accord,” as both a verb and a noun. As a noun it is a tool that we use to pursue unity: 1B: “A formal reaching of agreement: COMPACT. TREATY.” Unity is pursued through identifying various factions and sub factions and pursuing coalitions through formal or informal compacts and treaties. This gets into coalition politics, one of the key concepts of Quantum Civics, which I’ll circle back to in a bit.
“Accord” also intrigues me as a verb. The second definition is “to bring into agreement, to reconcile.” This definition talks directly to the process of pursuing unity. “To bring into agreement” sounds easier said than done, but reconciliation is going to be an essential cog. The concept of ‘reconciliation’ is its own rabbit hole, but if any rabbit holes can get us closer to ‘unity’ that’s certainly one of them.
One fundamental characteristic of unity is that it can’t be unilateral. Unilateral unity is oppression, which no one wants. [There are those that do, but since Democratic values are among our core principles, they don’t get a seat at this table.] If there are two sides and one doesn’t want unity, there is no unity to be had.
This is where nonbinary thinking is so important. If it becomes clear that one side does not want unity we have to respect their agency to preserve democracy. The fallacy is not in thinking that the “other side” can come around and join us in reconciliation, the fallacy is in thinking there are only two sides. Binary thinking is disrespectful to the democratic process and it’s disrespectful to yourself personally as an individual with a unique civic identity.
More “sides” means more factions. More factions mean more paths towards unity. So from a political strategy perspective, the question is not whether unity is possible but how to get the most expected value out of the coalitions and accords that they put together.
Democracy is based on the concept of majority rule. In the absence of a majority coalition, a plurality coalition is the next best thing. A plurality coalition is when a coalition does not represent a majority of citizens but represents more citizens than any other established coalition. As a strategy establishing plurality serves as both a plan B and a platform to get to plan A, and works as a viable primary strategy whether you believe a majority is possible or not.
What this might look like in political context: Presently the center-left democrats are ideologically flanked by progressive liberals on their left and Lincoln Society conservatives to their right. The dream scenario would be to pull both of those factions together under a common goal to form a majority coalition. Failing that, plan B would be to work with one of those two factions to form a plurality coalition. The progressive liberals appear to be the better option at this time, which opens a real possibility of “unity” that does not involve conservatives at all. I would be surprised it this option was not in the back of Biden’s mind during his address.
Perhaps talk about unity doesn’t feel very substantive. In that sense it is reasonable to consider it as naïve or foolish. But what’s clear is that his talk of unity is a call for coalitions, for different factions to work together. If we want ‘unity’ to mean “squad goals” instead of “pipe dreams” we’re going to need some unconventional looking squads.
