Introduction

            At the outset I will acknowledge that I began to explore this subject at the behest of David Johnson—a former student, a present university professor who is a gifted and published writer, and one of my most faithful readers—who frequently comments on my blogs and virtually always stretches my mind in the process. While he was the impetus for my effort to “dig a little deeper” into the concept and practice of compromise, he certainly isn’t responsible for the direction and substance of these ruminations—in fact, I make no claim that I will have covered all the issues he had in mind.

            As I began thinking through the elements, the issues, and the practical realities of the situations, the individuals, the myriad vested interests,  and the “dug in” principles that are present in any community problem or conflict, the necessity of establishing some boundaries—consistent with the title of this blog—for what I would choose to explore became obvious. Subsequent reading and research only magnified that conclusion, so I have staked out some relevant topics to explore “a bit” (a carefully chosen modifier), and those are as follows:

Since I discovered both the density and the expansiveness of the subject, such that books could be written about it—and have been!—it has also become clear that covering these topics will require several posts. Onward, then, to the first topic.

I. What Constitutes Compromise – “Middle” Ground or “Common” Ground?

Part of the conversation that follows is substantive—there is real “meaning” connected to these terms—and part of it is semantics, connotation. I will do my best to honor what is substantive and try not to get hung up on the semantics.

The notion that the experience of two parties—who hold different or “opposite” opinions, positions, points of view, or principles—meeting “in the middle” and agreeing to move forward on the basis of that give-and-take is a familiar and fairly conventional understanding or definition of compromise. However, a number of writers and commentators on the subject have concluded that this is an unacceptable characterization or model. It is, of course, arguable that the notion of “middle ground” is a slippery concept and that finding the actual “middle” between conflicting points of view—i.e. that each has moved “equidistant” from their opposing positions or that both have “given up” exactly the same amount of ground from the stances they had staked out—is either a spatial illusion or a mathematical enigma.

            However, it is easy to imagine that someone who finds this familiar “middle ground” terminology perfectly acceptable, might roll their eyes at what they regard as a picky, “straining at the margins” effort to discredit this very popular and familiar view of compromise. In a gentle, shake-of-the-head rebuke, one might suggest that this is not a mathematical or geometric issue, but that “middle” is simply a generic term for two sides reaching an agreement that both find a fair and equitable give-and-take. Fair enough, and perhaps we should let it rest there.

            However, an innovative and imaginative approach to this issue—and one that I will suggest might serve as a “bridge” to another perspective—was offered by my friend, Joel Stegall, who is also a faithful reader of and insightful commentator on my blogs, as well as an accomplished and published writer in his own right. The following observations are drawn from his comments in a couple of our FaceBook conversations:

“It is often said that to compromise moves into the dull gray area between opposing views of the ways things should be. However, as I recall high school physics of light, the area between black and white is not gray but a lush variety of colors. That insight seems to provide an understanding allowing for rich creativity. Maybe, in the process of compromise, it is not a matter of how much one can afford to give up, but a question of how creative we can be in finding new solutions. “

Options, then, may be available through that opulent blend of hues that are better for everyone than the previously-held polarized principles.

So, casting a whole “new light” on the issue, the middle ground fades into the background of that rainbow of colors and opens the door to creative thinking. No doubt there are many possibilities, as my research certainly suggests, but, again, in order not to wander too far off into the weeds, I’ll offer just one, which my friend, David Johnson—who I have acknowledged as the original initiator of this discussion—put forward, also in a FaceBook conversation. He posited that

“Compromise is the art of finding ‘common’ ground, not ‘middle’ ground.”

            My own explorations in the literature on compromise suggest that there are clearly others who share this point of view. But there is also caution offered, even among those who affirm it. The point is made that common ground, and other consensual agreements, tend to set aside, or step around, the encounter with a basic disagreement.  It seeks instead a consensus on some values, interests, or desires that are held in common by the negotiating parties and are close enough to the core of the original disagreement to resolve the issue.  As one source put it, “consensus on common ground is a lofty goal.” But by seeking it, advocates believe that they can serve the common good without either party to the disagreement giving up something valuable. Again, fair enough and capable of standing on its own feet!

            A classic compromise, as we have seen, differs in that it expresses an underlying and continuing conflict of values, interests, principles, even “ditches, and where all sides gain something of near equal significance but also sacrifice something valuable. Disagreements between the parties are embodied in and by the compromise.  

We are not, however, locked into the dilemma of a forced choice between the “middle” and “common” ground, as I deceptively framed this topic.  As we have seen, of course, even classic compromise offers, in Stegall’s attractive image, not just the option of a “middle,” but a spacious and colorful area between the points of disagreement that offers the possibility of rich creativity in finding new solutions. And ones that are not limited to polarized positions, even if on occasion conversants do agree to sacrifice something valuable to find common ground.

            Now, finally, on this topic, a brief excursion into the relationship between common “ground” and the common “good,” and this is where it gets complicated. Because finding common ground—agreement—on the common good—defined as what is shared and beneficial to most, if not all—is usually not easy. On the one hand, it should be—access to health care for all, for example. But even if separate parties can agree to that, there is the pesky question, who will pay for it, how, and when? will it be private or public funds? and if private, how can it be made affordable? if public, will the funds come from increased taxes and/or added to the deficit? You get the picture—as if you hadn’t already. Common ground on this common good is a shifting landscape.

And other examples are easy to find: lowering the price of prescription drugs, addressing the gross inequities of the nation’s digital divide, shoring up the nation’s infrastructure. As noted in an op ed by the Editorial Board of the NY Times, lawmakers and voters from both parties recognize the need to overhaul the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges, but, once again, when it comes time to talk about how to pay for projects, things get stickier.

          In his book, The Common Good (Alfred A Knopf: New York, NY, 2018), Robert Reich noted that the concept of the common, or public, good is nothing new. It can be found in the writings of eighteenth century philosophers as a means to civic virtue, and even in writings dating back to Plato and the idea of social harmony. Nevertheless, he argues that America has been “swinging away” from the common good and more toward the individual since at least the late 1960s—regardless of whether Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives were in control. He believes that this has caused a kind of decay in public trust of government and other institutions. His description of the country as a “nation of shareholders as opposed to stakeholders” is the result of his conviction that we no longer understand the concept of the common good.

            Whether he is correct, or not, I leave to the judgment of those of you whose grasp of the issue is sharper than mine. I will, however, following an apology, take a “baby step” and venture an opinion based on what I’ve already said about the difficulty of reaching common “ground” on any given area of the common “good.”

·       My apology is that although most of us have occasion to seek compromise in micro-areas, such as our communities, organizations, or even family disagreements, I took most of my examples, perhaps misleadingly, from the macro-world of corporate, national, or political disputes.

·       That said, I would suggest that while we are far more likely to find “common ground in the common good” in our micro-worlds, even there, it is much more plausible that we will find that common ground not in the comprehensive sense of the common good, even in a micro-zone, but in the narrower region of some shared values, interests, or even principles.

Lest I beat this subject to death, I will thank you for giving your attention to the first subject I have chosen to address in this blog, and hope you will feel free to comment with observations, questions, or additions to the content. That said, I will take my cue from the last word in the paragraph above, and move our attention to the following topic, which we will consider in the next post.

The Relationship of Compromise to the Principles Crucial to our Integrity

I hope you will stay tuned and follow along.

Sources Consulted

“Valuing Compromise for the Common Good,” Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Daedalus, Spring 2013.

“Integrity: the virtue of compromise,” Jeremy Schwartz, Palgrave Communications, Article number: 16085, November 29, 2016.

”Ethics of Compromise,” Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016, A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2380-1.

“The Mindsets of Political Compromise.” Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, American Political Science Association, 2010.

“Our divided times are an opportunity for empathy. Really.” Jamil Zaki, Robb Willer, Jan Gerrit Voelkel, and Luiza Santos. Op ed, Washington Post, 12/29/2020.

“Build on Common Ground,” Editorial Board, op.ed., NY Times, Dec. 12, 2020.

“How to Know When to Compromise: 4 Key Questions to Ask,” Tess Pajaron, Goalcast, July 28, 2017.

“Common Ground and Common Good,” H.B. Gelatt, Positive Uncertainty, August 16, 2015.

“Does Common Ground Require Agreeing on the Common Good?” Common Ground Committee, February 28, 2018.

“On the possibility of principled moral compromise,” Daniel Weinstock, Published online: Sept. 2, 2013