Binary Oppositions

The renown physicist Werner Heisenberg once said, “unity and complementarity constitute reality.” He meant that in quantum mechanics, the idea of atomizing, or cutting something into the smallest unit particles, something that should not be atomized is fundamentally wrong, as we should not separate parts from the whole. What he means is also that if isolated, an object exists in a vacuum and has no meaning. We need the counterparts in a larger system to define everything, and more specifically, binary systems. Since one can be separated against the other, we define everything by distinguishing it from what it is not. Thus, it is only through one or more sets of binary oppositions within a system that humans can successfully understand the object. However, binary systems are by nature oppressive and exclusionary, and therefore unstable. This concept was highlighted in various fields, including linguistics, literature, gender studies, philosophy, and sociology.

To begin with, every concept in our culture needs a counterpart to assure its meaning. In linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure proposed that we cannot define any object unless we contrast it with what it is not. He conceptualized language as a system of differences, in which each element of language is identified as different from other elements. Essentially, we define words by eliminating all of the other possible definitions in the same language. For example, the reason why we can call the letter “C,” “C” is because we know that it is not any other letter in the alphabet. Another example would be how we connect a word with the physical object: we associate the word “dog” with the image of a dog in our mind precisely because we can distinguish a dog from being nothing like a cat, any other animal, or object; we define many objectives using their antonyms, and we always assume that there is an opposite word for every word. The way language functions shows the necessity of at least one set of oppositions in order to define an object.

I was fascinated by this idea when I first explored the binary system in constructing our identities in my mythology and identity class. We learn information from structures that are embedded in language, so culturally we need to be presented with oppositions to understand their meaning. The individual and the larger system can never be dissoluble. This is clear if we think about how we describe our identity. Is there any signifier of our identity that can stand alone in the vacuum? The answer is no. It is simply impossible for us to analyze ourselves separated from the rest of the society. There is nothing that is our so-called inner self, the part that we believe is invariant, regardless of our environment. One most intuitive and also counterintuitive proof for the need of a larger system is this: when someone asks you to identify yourself, you usually start by choosing a word that describes yourself. However, the moment you start to think in language, you fail to analyze yourself as an entirely independent individual. Instead, as you apply the language, you are defining yourself within a system that is modeled on language.

Binary oppositions exist not only within the scope of individuals, but also helps to define group identity. This is illustrated by the dichotomy between nationals and foreigners. A nation can be defined as an imagined community. A nation is imagined because it is simply impossible for co-nationals to know all of their fellow members. Thus, national identity is based on an image of commonality created in our heads that both connects us and defines our uniqueness from foreigners. In order for a nation to exist there must be foreigners. Nations are inherently limited—they only exist in opposition or distinction to other nations. Even the largest nation in the world does not want everyone on the planet to belong to its imagined community. Although there can be inequality and oppression between different classes in a nation, it is their shared exclusiveness toward the foreigners (their counterparts) that unites them. Nationalists always need an “other” (who they are not) to define where they belong. It is the drawn line that defines the boundaries of a nation: if you are on one certain side of the line, then you are in the nation; if you are on the other side of the line, then you are a foreigner. Thus, we can again see that it is the dichotomy between the nationals and the foreigners that really defines a nation.

Despite the fact that both individual and aggregate oppositions help us define our existence, some can be oppressive and hostile. The oppressiveness can be seen in terms of ethnocentrism, imposing one’s own ethnic culture on others, and more generally, anthropocentrism, interpreting the world in terms of human values. Sometimes, one of the two ends in a binary opposition has a more dominant role. In the case shown above, the dualism between nationals and foreigners is ethnocentric, because the citizens of a nation assume they are superior than the foreigners. Due to the scarcity of the resources and land, nations will fight with each other to not only to earn their mother country more resources, but also to prove their superiority. Nationals will also favor their nation rather than the others. Nationalists are prone to forgive their nation’s misdeeds and blame other nations’ offenses. It is true that the binary opposition enhances national solidarity, but it also causes hostility towards foreigners and a desire to dominate the other is.

The binary opposition can also be seen in the human/nature dualism, introduced in my environmental literature class. Historically, because people had limited knowledge of nature, they used to consider wilderness as a horrifying unknownness; in this case, the wilderness is assumed to be the negative side of the opposition. More recently, people started to appreciate and worship wilderness as they realize their ability to control and modify the environment; here, nature is seen as the positive side in the relation. Despite the change in the attitude toward nature, humans always define nature or wilderness as the opposite of our civilization. Humans, trapped in the prison of language, tend to think in anthropocentric perspective, considering nature as the other. Othering wilderness suggests our alienation and our inability to live with nature in harmony. This opposition hinders humans from protecting nature in a more neutral and pragmatic way.

Furthermore, the oppressiveness of the binary is not only that one side is inferior, but also that certain objects, which cannot be categorized, are excluded from the binary systems. For example, in both English and mythology class, we discussed our construction of gender identities. The dichotomy of two genders (men and women) was established by social conventions that assign gender roles. Traditionally, certain roles are regarded as ideal and appropriate for that particular gender. If one fails to adhere to the role assigned by society, or intends to fulfill the opposite role, one is at constant risk of being judged as abnormal. There is always a spectrum of gender behaviors that cannot be reduced to a simple dichotomy. The simplification will repress all fluidity that exists on the spectrum. Thus, gender identity should never be universally categorized into “man” or “woman” when one is born. Instead, gender identification is always an ongoing process through interacting with others in different social contexts. The gender dichotomy that is widely accepted in our society excludes other genders beside men and women. The genders along the spectrum are underrepresented or just simply out of the picture.

To conclude, binary oppositions are necessary to define the meaning of objects in our culture, but they are certainly oppressive and exclusionary. Due to our inability to escape from the system, it will never be feasible to isolate ourselves and judge without bias. But paradoxically we are also the creators and designers of the meanings that are available in this system. This means we can collaborate to improve the current social order. The tension between nations will be relieved if we can be more inclusive towards foreigners; we can act in more pragmatic way to protect wilderness if we can start to consider nature and humans as a whole; gender inequality will no longer persist if we can liberalize attitudes about gender roles. Technically, we cannot be neutral observers. Act now, and become a co-creator of a better society.