The Pendulum of Coping: Societal Shifts from Rigidity to Boundlessness

Key Takeaways

• Historical pendulum: Society has swung from rigid, masculine "fight" responses (aggression, control) to boundaryless, feminine "fawn" responses (excessive accommodation, conflict avoidance).

• Both extremes rely on black-and-white thinking: The past enforced conformity; the present enforces accommodation. Neither approach allows for nuanced integration.

• Weaponized values: In the past, strength was weaponized to control others; today, vulnerability is weaponized to gain moral leverage and avoid accountability.

• The middle path: Identify core non-negotiable values while remaining flexible in how these values are expressed across different contexts.

• Change begins within: Individual transformation—developing discernment, emotional regulation, interdependence, and psychological flexibility—is the foundation for broader social change.

• Breaking the cycle: True progress comes not from finding a different point on the pendulum's arc but from transcending the cycle of extremes altogether.

  
  

Our contemporary society is in a constant state of adaptation. We have shifted from one extreme to another in the ways we collectively handle stress, set boundaries, and determine what behavior is acceptable. This shift highlights our changing relationship with discomfort and the evolving dynamics of social cohesion.

As we shift away from the structured corporate and institutional paradigms of the past, we now face a new problem: many young people have no structure at all in their lives. They've lost sight of fundamental realities—that humans still need food and shelter, that economic self-reliance remains essential, that some form of structure is necessary for psychological well-being. The pendulum has swung so far that the basic frameworks that support functional life have been dismissed as oppressive relics, leaving many adrift without the tools to create sustainable lives.

Historical Context: How We Got Here

Before exploring the extremes, it's important to note that societies often oscillate between opposites in response to past excesses.

The inflexible, male-dominated systems of the past led to real suffering and oppression for many, causing a shift toward greater inclusion and emotional awareness.

Similarly, today's excesses in accommodation may eventually trigger a return to more structured approaches.

This historical oscillation suggests that finding balance has always been humanity's challenge.

The Past: Rigidity and Masculine Coping

Historically, western societies embraced a predominantly masculine approach to managing threats:

• Workplace dynamics: Men worked through stress with physical labor or competition; emotional outbursts were tolerated only as anger. A factory foreman might slam his fist on a table to restore order, and this was considered appropriate leadership.

• Family structure: Clearly defined roles positioned fathers as disciplinarians and providers, mothers as nurturers. When a child misbehaved in the 1950s, "wait until your father gets home" was both threat and affirmation of the established order.

• Social conformity: Clothing, career paths, and social behaviors were strictly regulated by gender and class. Men who showed "feminine" traits faced severe social penalties—a man crying in public in the 1940s might lose respect permanently among peers.

• Institutional responses: Problems were addressed through direct intervention and control. Mental health issues were often handled through institutionalization, with emotional distress viewed as weakness or moral failure.

• Conflict resolution: Disputes between men might be settled physically—schoolyard fights were considered normal, even necessary rites of passage for boys learning to "be men."

The dominant social response to threats was "fight"—confronting problems directly through aggression or control. Those who fit the masculine ideal thrived in this environment of clear hierarchies and boundaries.

However, those who didn't fit these established norms—homosexuals, gender non-conforming individuals, many women, sensitive men, ethnically diverse individuals—often had to cope through "freeze" (hiding their true selves, conforming outwardly while suffering inwardly) or "flight" (exile, self-isolation, or finding underground communities). Their survival depended on adapting to a system that fundamentally rejected their authentic expression.

The Present: Boundlessness and Feminine Coping

Today's social landscape has swung dramatically in the opposite direction. Where past societies prioritized "fight" as the dominant response to threats, our current culture has widely adopted "fawn" as the primary coping mechanism - the tendency to people-please, over-accommodate, and pacify to avoid conflict.

• Workplace culture: Companies implement extensive accommodations for emotional well-being, from therapy dogs to meditation rooms. A manager might spend hours addressing an employee's feelings about feedback that once would have been delivered in a brief, direct exchange. Team members often suppress honest opinions to maintain harmony.

• Educational environments: Schools increasingly prioritize emotional safety over intellectual challenge. Trigger warnings precede potentially upsetting material, and students can request extensions or exemptions based on emotional distress, including the one coming from receiving a bad grade. Professors modify their teaching to avoid potential offense rather than challenging students with uncomfortable ideas.

• Language policing: Communication is carefully monitored for potentially offensive content. People lose jobs or face public shaming for statements that violate evolving social norms, leading to excessive self-censorship and performative virtue signaling to maintain social acceptance.

• Identity validation: Self-definition has become sacrosanct. Questioning someone's self-declared identity—whether about gender, sexuality, or other aspects—is considered a form of violence, regardless of biological, historical, or logical contradictions. The social imperative is to validate all claims to avoid conflict.

• Conflict avoidance: Direct confrontation is replaced with indirect communication. People "ghost" rather than explicitly end relationships, and workplaces implement anonymous feedback systems rather than encouraging face-to-face resolution. Difficult conversations are postponed indefinitely in favor of superficial harmony.

The modern approach emphasizes inclusion and acceptance, but it now often results in a lack of boundaries. University administrators might change curricula in response to student discomfort with challenging ideas; parents might hesitate to set limits for fear of damaging children's self-esteem; community standards become difficult to enforce when any limitation can be framed as oppression. The pendulum has swung from rigid structure to an environment where limitations of any kind are often viewed as violations of personal identity, and where appeasing others has become the default response to potential conflict.

Black and White Thinking: The Common Thread

Interestingly, both extremes share a common foundation in black-and-white thinking:

1. The rigid past saw conformity as virtuous and deviation as dangerous

2. The boundaryless present sees acceptance as virtuous and limitation as dangerous

Both perspectives lack nuance and balance. The past's rigidity crushed individuality while providing order; the present's boundlessness validates individual experience while potentially undermining collective resilience.

What's particularly striking is how each era weaponizes its dominant value.

In the past, strength was weaponized—used to control, intimidate, and enforce conformity. The physically or socially powerful could impose their will on others with little consequence. The underlying message was simple: "The stronger is always right." Power, whether physical, economic, or social, was the ultimate arbiter of truth and justice. Those without power had little recourse for injustice, as the system itself was designed to validate the perspective of the powerful.

Today, we've flipped this dynamic completely: vulnerability is weaponized—used to silence opposition, avoid accountability, and gain moral leverage. Claims of harm or emotional distress become trump cards that shut down dialogue and exempt individuals from normal expectations. The new underlying message is equally problematic: "The weaker is always right." In this paradigm, the most vulnerable or marginalized voice automatically carries the most moral authority, regardless of the objective merits of their position. Power has inverted, but the binary thinking remains—we've simply replaced one flawed arbiter (strength) with another (vulnerability).

Both approaches are equally wrong because both reduce complex human dynamics to simplistic power equations rather than seeking truth, balance, or genuine understanding. In both cases, what could be a positive attribute (strength that protects, vulnerability that connects) becomes distorted when taken to extremes and used for power rather than growth. Each era simply uses different tools to enforce its particular brand of black-and-white thinking.

Finding Balance: The Integration of Masculine and Feminine

A healthier societal approach would integrate the strengths of both coping styles:

• Boundaries without rigidity

• Acceptance without abandoning standards

• Emotional expression alongside emotional regulation

• Individual validation within communal responsibility

• Adaptation that doesn't sacrifice identity

This integration acknowledges that both masculine and feminine coping strategies have value when applied appropriately. Structure provides security; adaptation provides growth. Neither alone creates a sustainable framework for human flourishing.

The Middle Ground: Core Values with Flexible Expression

Rather than continuing to oscillate between extremes, a more balanced approach emerges when we identify and maintain non-negotiable core values while allowing flexibility in how these values are expressed.

This middle ground manifests in concrete, sometimes politically incorrect ways:

• Parenting: A middle-ground parent maintains firm boundaries around education, respect, and responsibility while allowing autonomy in personal interests. They might firmly enforce that completing homework is non-negotiable (core value of education and commitment) but give their child complete freedom to choose their extracurricular activities, whether traditional or unconventional for their gender (flexible expression). When the child complains about homework, the parent remains firm on the requirement while being flexible about when and how it's completed, teaching both accountability and self-management.

• Education: A balanced school maintains rigorous academic standards and expectations for respectful behavior while providing adaptations for diverse learning needs. When a student with dyslexia or ADHD struggles with standard assessment methods, teachers don't lower the learning expectations (non-negotiable commitment to academic standards) but offer alternative ways to demonstrate mastery, such as oral presentations instead of written tests or extended time accommodations (flexible implementation).

• Workplace management: A middle-ground manager holds employees accountable for results and professional conduct while allowing personal autonomy in work methods. They might directly tell an underperforming employee, "Your work doesn't meet our standards" (non-negotiable value) while collaborating on personalized improvement strategies (flexible approach). They recognize that protecting one employee's feelings at the expense of team performance ultimately serves no one.

• Gender discussions: A balanced approach acknowledges biological sex as an immutable reality (non-negotiable scientific fact) while respecting individuals' right to express their gender identity differently (flexible social expression). This means acknowledging women's real physical disadvantage by maintaning specific sport categories and sex-based spaces when physical safety is concerned while remaining flexible about gender expression in most social contexts.

• Free speech: A middle-ground position defends the principle that open discourse is essential for democracy (non-negotiable value) while recognizing that genuinely harmful speech like hatred and defamation crosses a boundary (reasonable limitation). This means protecting even controversial or uncomfortable speech that contributes to public debate, while drawing clear lines against speech that incites violence or deliberately spreads falsehoods about individuals. This balanced approach rejects both the rigid past (where certain topics were entirely off-limits) and the boundaryless present (where all limitations are viewed as censorship). It creates space for robust, challenging debate within parameters that preserve human dignity and factual integrity.

• Cultural practices : This balanced approach also extends to cultural practices in multicultural societies. It acknowledges cultural diversity as enriching while maintaining firm boundaries around practices that contradict core democratic values. For example, while religious freedom is protected, specific practices like veiling young girls or promoting punishments for apostasy (leaving one's religion) would not be accommodated, as they contradict fundamental values of individual autonomy and freedom of conscience. This approach rejects both the rigid past (where cultural homogeneity was enforced) and the boundaryless present (where all cultural practices are considered equally valid regardless of their compatibility with democratic values). It creates space for genuine multiculturalism within parameters that preserve individual freedom, and the foundational principles of democratic society.

This approach rejects both rigid conformity and boundaryless permissiveness. Instead, it creates a framework where diversity flourishes within a coherent value structure. For example:

• Respect for human life remains non-negotiable, while the cultural expressions of care and protection can vary widely

• Truth-telling stands as a core value, though communication styles may differ across contexts

• Individual responsibility remains essential, while accommodating different capacities and circumstances

• Community well-being is prioritized, with flexible implementations based on local or individuals needs

Moving Forward: Beginning with Individual Balance

A truly evolved society would transcend black and white thinking about coping itself, recognizing that wisdom lies in the balance between firmness in principles and flexibility in application. This creates space for both security and growth, both individual expression and collective responsibility.

Importantly, this societal transformation also begins at the individual level. Each person can undertake the inner work of developing:

• Personal discernment: The ability to distinguish between core values that should remain firm, and preferences that can flex with circumstances. This requires deep self-reflection to identify what principles truly matter versus what merely feels comfortable due to habit or social conditioning. For example, one might hold firm to the value of honesty while being flexible about how that honesty is expressed across different relationships and contexts. Developing discernment means regularly asking: "Is this a hill worth dying on, or a preference I can adapt?" It involves examining your emotional reactions to determine whether your resistance comes from a violation of core values or merely discomfort with change.

• Emotional regulation: The capacity to respond to challenges with appropriate firmness or flexibility rather than defaulting to rigid control (fight) or excessive accommodation (fawn). This means developing awareness of your default stress responses and consciously choosing alternatives when appropriate. When faced with criticism, for instance, rather than automatically defending (fight) or immediately apologizing (fawn), you might pause to consider: "What part of this feedback is valid? What boundaries do I need to maintain?" Emotional regulation requires practices that create space between stimulus and response—meditation, journaling, or simply counting to ten before reacting.

• Cultivating interdependence: The integration of traditionally masculine and feminine coping strategies, applying each when the situation truly calls for it. This means cultivating both assertiveness and receptivity, both protection and nurturing, both autonomy and connection. A balanced individual can stand firm when principles are at stake yet remain open to compromise on methods and approaches. They can set boundaries without becoming rigid, show compassion without being exploited. This integration often requires healing gender-related wounds—men reconnecting with their capacity for vulnerability, women embracing their self-reliance, and people of all genders recognizing that wholeness comes from integration rather than polarization.

• Psychological flexibility: The ability to hold seemingly contradictory truths simultaneously—maintaining boundaries while remaining open to growth. This means developing comfort with complexity and paradox rather than seeking simple either/or solutions. Importantly, psychological flexibility does not mean losing sight of or compromising on core values—rather, it means understanding that firm values can coexist with nuanced implementation. For example, one might recognize that humans have both biological realities and subjective experiences of identity; that free speech is both essential and carries responsibilities; that children need both protection and freedom to explore. Psychological flexibility allows us to navigate these apparent contradictions not by abandoning our principles or retreating to relativism, but by understanding the larger context in which both seemingly opposing perspectives can inform a more complete understanding while still maintaining clear boundaries around what matters most.

As more individuals develop this balanced approach to coping with life's challenges, social norms will naturally shift. Families, workplaces, communities, and eventually broader society begin to mirror this integration of firm principles with flexible expression.

By identifying what is truly non-negotiable versus what can flex with changing circumstances, both individuals and societies avoid the trap of either excessive rigidity or boundaryless accommodation. The path forward requires personal development first—each person learning what must remain firm as their foundation, while allowing human creativity to flourish in how they express and live out these enduring values.

Conclusion: Breaking the Pendulum Cycle

The greatest challenge we face is not determining which extreme is correct—rigid structure or boundaryless accommodation—but breaking the pendulum cycle altogether. By cultivating individual balance and promoting social systems that honor both firm boundaries and flexible expressions, we might finally escape the historical pattern of oscillating between extremes.

The healthiest societies of the future won't be characterized by how they lean toward traditionally masculine or feminine coping strategies, but by their ability to integrate both approaches in service of genuine human flourishing—where security and growth, traditional wisdom and innovation, boundaries and freedom can coexist not as opposites but as complementary forces in a more complete social ecology.