The Pre/Trans Fallacy
First published on March 10, 2020
The modern world is complex, full of situations of nuance and texture. This makes it hard to make sense of. Indeed, Rebel Wisdom, the company whose YouTube channel has been fundamental in the way I have developed my ability to make sense of the world in the last 12 months, believe we are in the middle of a sense-making crisis.
Today, as I sat asking myself what to write about, an idea came up which felt important to try and unpack. It has been incredibly valuable to me in the way I make sense of the world, but it's a little tricky to explain (and it may be one of the times that the 12 minute writing practice falls on its arse - thanks for coming with me as I find out).
The idea in question is the Pre/Trans Fallacy, an idea which originated with philosopher Ken Wilber and which - in the way that I understand it, which is of course the way that has been useful for me - goes something like this. Things change and develop as time goes on: we (individually and as a society) look on things with greater perspective, we see things in ways that we (individually or as a society) simply didn't see them before. Perspectives change and shift, and there are levels of psychological and moral development (and other kinds, too) that each of us go through. We transcend one phase of development and move into the next. (There, in the word 'transcend', is the 'Trans' of the Pre/Trans Fallacy.)
As we develop our perspectives, our views and behaviours might change. Here is where it becomes tricky: sometimes when we develop greater perspective, we might do or believe things which to others look like we are operating with less perspective.
My favourite example of this came from David Deida, many years ago, via my sister. Essentially it goes something like this: in traditional relationships, men did certain things and women did other things. Those were the rules, and that was the common societal and individual view. Then, individual and societal perspective developed, attitudes changed and the possibility opened up for roles to be defined in a relationship in different ways.
This played out in a lot of different ways in different relationships. In my relationship, though, I used to get a little concerned. I would find myself, sitting at the computer working into the evening, while my wife (girlfriend at the time) was cooking in the kitchen. This was common. It happened most nights. Almost every night. I got worried. Was I somehow oppressing her without thinking?
The answer, in this case, was: 'Of course not'. In asking that question, I was committing the Pre/Trans Fallacy: confusing traditional roles in the house, which were oppressive for many women (the 'Pre') with two people understanding each other deeply and dividing up responsibilities in a sensible way which fits well with the deeper humanity of both of them (the 'Trans'). In our case, because cooking is Emma's hobby, the thing she loves to do at the end of a hard day's work, and something she is excellent at, and because I am at best a functional chef who mostly cooks based on creating the highest servings-to-time-spent ratio I can, it makes a lot of sense that she should do most of the cooking. On the outside, it looks very similar to the division of the cooking that might have taken place due simply to (sometimes oppressive) custom and tradition one hundred years ago, but in many ways it couldn't be more different.
But this happens not just in this example, it happens everywhere. One of the reasons the conversation around immigration sometimes becomes so tough is because people find themselves caught out by the Pre/Trans Fallacy, confusing one reason to oppose unlimited immigration (fear of 'the other', racism) with the many other, more nuanced reasons for which people may have arrived at their position. If someone believes that immigration controls are needed, that may look very similar to the position that comes purely from fear of difference, but it may in fact come from somewhere very, very different.
This is important because the modern world is increasingly complex. Not only that, but we spend less and less time with people who believe different things to us, and we spend more and more time communicating with people online, where we aren't able to make use of all the interpersonal signals we pick up in person. For those reasons and more it is so easy to jump to (often uncharitable) conclusions about others and their motivations. The Pre/Trans Fallacy is just one reason to hesitate before you do that, but it can be a powerful one.
Instead of jumping to those conclusions, extend the benefit of the doubt. Do this internally: what if this person has a really good reason to believe what they believe or do what they do? They certainly believe it's a good reason (no one does things or believes things they think are completely stupid); what if they're right? What changes if you ask yourself this question?
Do it relationally: bring curiosity to conversations before you jump to conclusions. Ask, 'Sh, what led you to believe that?' It may be because they haven't thought about things, or hold an out-dated societal viewpoint (Pre), but what if they have taken more perspective - more, perhaps, even than you - and come to a reasoned, thoughtful and careful position (Trans)? Wouldn't you like to know how they got there?