Beyond Marxism: The Limits of Dichotomy When discussing injustice, the dichotomy of good versus evil that often comes to mind is frequently simplistic. The oppressor and the oppressed, the haves and the have-nots, those who raise their voices and those forced into silence. We tend to understand the world through such simple antagonistic structures and attempt to define justice accordingly. However, Elizaveta Friesem, in essays contributed to major academic platforms such as LSE Blogs and Aeon, argues that this approach is insufficient to fully explain the diverse conflicts and inequalities of modern society. It is time to seriously consider the fact that the way of thinking we have taken for granted can actually become a barrier that obscures the complexity of problems. Friesem acknowledges in her essays that traditional Marxist social analysis has greatly contributed to revealing the structures of oppression and inequality. However, she points out that this perspective is overly dichotomous, meaning that simply dividing society into oppressors and oppressed hinders a proper understanding of contemporary complex conflicts. Reality is not simply a dichotomy of good and evil. People hold multiple, intersecting identities and roles, and no one can be defined entirely as an oppressor or the oppressed. Inequality and suffering in our lives do not arise solely from traditional structural domination. Systemic failures or unforeseen social consequences often have a deeper impact on our daily lives. Friesem's argument is based on the concept of paradigm shifts by the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argued that scientific progress is not achieved through gradual accumulation but through a fundamental shift in thought frameworks. Friesem applies this to social analysis, asserting that while Marxism served as a dominant paradigm of its era, contributing to making structural injustice visible, it is now time for a new paradigm. She emphasizes, "Social life is far more complexly intertwined than binary models can capture, people occupy mixed and changing positions, harm does not arise solely from intentional domination, and systems often produce outcomes that no one intended or controlled." Let's take an example. Can a conflict in a workplace simply be explained as 'the boss oppressing employees'? Friesem argues that beyond such simplification, we must consider how power structures, individual intentions, and social expectations intertwine to create new conflicts. A person's strengths and weaknesses in a personal situation change with context. For instance, someone who appears to be a powerful boss within a company might play a completely different role at home, perhaps even being a helpless victim. This demonstrates that power and helplessness are not fixed attributes but are relational and contextual. Such complexity can lead to outcomes that no one intended but cause difficulties for everyone. A prime example is the COVID-19 pandemic that the world experienced from 2020 to 2023. Issues like mask shortages, vaccine priority problems, and controversies related to remote work were not simply matters of who was oppressing whom. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the initial mask shortage during the pandemic stemmed from structural vulnerabilities in global supply chains, with unpredictable systemic failures being the primary cause rather than intentional domination by specific individuals or groups. In situations where it is difficult to clearly understand the origins of social problems, the approach to solving them must also be more flexible and creative. Multi-layered Nature of Conflict: Modern Society through the Lens of Complexity Theory To address this, Friesem proposes 'Complexity Theory,' which transcends the limitations of existing theories. Complexity Theory is an academic approach that has developed in natural and social sciences since the 1960s, presenting the view that systems operate through multi-layered interactions rather than simple cause-and-effect relationships. Sociologists Niklas Luhmann and Edgar Morin are considered pioneers in this field. Complexity Theory posits that conflicts do not arise from a single cause or structure but are formed by the entanglement of various elements. This includes a combination of individual choices, systemic constraints, and intended and unintended consequences. In other words, in modern society, no one can be perfectly defined as a 'victim' or 'perpetrator,' and all relationships undergo dynamic and changing processes. This way of thinking offers important lessons for Korean society as well. One of the most prominent issues in Korean society recently is intergenerational conflict. The conflict between the MZ generation (born early 1980s to early 2000s) and older generations is a representative example. According to the Korea Institute of Public Administration's 2024 Social Integration Survey, 68.3% of respondents answered that "intergenerationa
Related Articles