Let's say we have two communities, one who firmly believes that differences of opinion can only be resolved one of two ways: beat the crap out of the opposing view and walk away the 'winner,' or (if really necessary, dragging both feet and whining) by compromising, defined as giving up something I really, really want and forcing you to sacrifice something you really really want, then agreeing that this is the very best either of us can do. That's one side, call it DC, for Dominion or Compromise.

The other side considers differences of opinion to be departure points and refuses to get married to (or even go steady with) either the either or the or. This 'side' believes that domination eventually (often quickly) falls apart and compromise is just stupid (we'll be smarter by deciding to each be a bit dumber...). This side believes there is always a third way, one which integrates values and interests to invent a more satisfying resolution than either pole of the difference can anticipate. Let's call this the Insight (or 'In') side.

Okay, In-side proposes a resolution and invites DC to engage in an inquiry intended to develop a deeper understanding of the issue and stumble upon some insights that might serve as a really different resolution than the one he proposes. (It doesn't matter where he starts with his proposal, since that's just the medium for starting the conversation.) But DC mistakes this as a negotiating ploy intended to either threaten dominion or encourage compromise, and responds in kind, with threats or counter-compromises, never engaging in anything like a dialogue. 

No matter how vehemently In-side insists that he's not cleverly pursuing dominion or compromise, DC just can't grok that there's other space possible. When In-side calls for bi-partisanship, he is not trying to weaken DC, but strengthen them. But DC interprets this as just another round of partisan gamesmanship, and responds in kind.

Any dispassionate consideration of this dilemma would conclude that if there was a way to integrate values and interests to create a resolution that would serve everyone better, this would be a great thing to pursue. But the game becomes one between an adult and an eight year old. The subtle potential imbedded in the invitation slips by unseen, and raw emotion at what's not there dominates play, when what's not there (yet) is the whole purpose of playing in the first place. The eight year old does not yet understand how to create in this world.

In the past, these sorts of conflicts have resulted in civil wars (a curious label for anything so uncivil), or, wait for it, even greater domination or compromise (Wilson in France negotiating the 'peace to end all peace' comes to mind, when the French and English swiped everything that wasn't nailed down in a desperate last gasp for dominion.) We're hopeful a third way might yet emerge from the debating society stuck in DC.