The Law of Three: Moving Beyond Political Polarization and Personal Conflict
We live in a time of deep division. Families are breaking apart, friendships are dissolving, and trust is eroding. Political discourse has become a battleground where winning is prioritized over understanding. The constant tension, the need to prove oneself right, and the inability to truly listen are symptoms of a deeper problem: dualistic thinking.
To break free from this cycle, we must first examine identification—the way we define ourselves in relation to others. Identity is not inherently negative; it helps us make sense of our experiences. However, when identity becomes rigid, inflexible, and deeply tied to our self-worth, it leads to opposition instead of connection. This is particularly evident in politics, where identity-driven allegiance often takes precedence over meaningful engagement.
Identification, when not porous or adaptable, makes it difficult to engage in holistic thinking. It is at the root of much of our suffering and is a key obstacle to understanding the Law of Three—a concept that provides a path beyond polarization. Before applying this understanding to politics, relationships, and our personal lives, we must first explore how identification becomes a trap.
The Trap of Either-Or Thinking
As humans, we are wired to categorize reality into opposites: right and wrong, good and bad, progress and tradition, us versus them. This binary mode of thinking is automatic—it is how we organize and interface with the world. While this system is essential for survival, it also limits our ability to engage with complexity and nuance.
Currently, this either-or thinking creates stalemates rather than solutions. In a two-force system, the focus is on winning rather than problem-solving. We see this in our political system, where each side fights for dominance, assuming that if they push hard enough, the other will concede. But the harder one side pushes, the more resistance it faces, leading to gridlock, repeated outrage, and increased polarization. The only thing that seems to change is the volume of the discourse.
When only two opposing forces are at play, conflict is pushed to extremes. Instead of fostering productive dialogue, opposition turns people into enemies. Rich disagreements, which could be an opportunity for growth, devolve into personal attacks. The result is tribalism, where the loudest, most extreme voices dominate the conversation. Politicians and media outlets exploit this dynamic, amplifying outrage to maintain engagement, while those seeking middle ground and innovation are often drowned out.
Mimetic Conflict: The Mirror Effect
Many of the identities we cling to are not purely independent choices but are shaped by mimetic conflict—a concept explored by René Girard. Mimetic conflict arises from mimesis, or mirroring, the unconscious imitation of another’s actions, expressions, or behaviors. While this ability is crucial for empathy and social learning, it also fuels rivalry. We desire what others desire, we fear what others fear, and over time, our identities become defined by opposition rather than belonging.
This is particularly evident in politics. Each side defines itself as a solution to the other’s failures, yet they gradually begin to resemble each other—not in values, but in tactics, rhetoric, and outrage. The harder one side pushes against an enemy, the more it becomes its mirror image. When something is pushed to its extreme, it often transforms into its opposite. In today’s political landscape, the growing resemblance between ideological opponents is becoming impossible to ignore.
The Law of Three: A New Way Forward
If we are to break free from this binary trap, we must move beyond it entirely. This is where the Law of Three becomes essential. The Law of Three states that every process of change requires three forces:
Affirming (active force) – the initiating energy, desire, or impulse.
Denying (resisting force) – the opposing energy or obstacle that creates friction.
Reconciling (creative force) – the hidden force that transforms the conflict, not by eliminating it, but by generating something entirely new.
These forces interweave to produce a fourth force—a new dimension of understanding. The reconciling force, however, is often hidden. It requires awareness and presence to be identified. Rather than reacting habitually, we must learn to spot and mediate the third force, allowing what is generally hidden to emerge.
A Personal Example: Surrender as the Third Force
In my own life, I have encountered the Law of Three in deeply personal ways. One of the clearest examples comes from my experience with addiction and recovery.
Affirming Force: The desire to change. That moment of clarity when I realized, “I can’t keep living like this.”
Denying Force: Alcohol itself, but also the deep unconscious forces of resistance—fear of change, denial, justification, ego protection.
Reconciling Force: Surrender. The real shift came not from willpower (which is still dualistic: “I must beat this”), but from surrender—to a Higher Power, to a community, to the reality that I couldn’t do this alone.
True recovery isn’t just about abstinence—it’s about a whole new way of being.
The Seed as a Metaphor for the Law of Three
A seed, as Jesus said, “unless it falls into the ground and dies, remains a single seed.” [John 12:24]
The seed represents the affirming force—the original essence.
The soil is the denying force—it resists, it holds, it breaks open the seed’s shell.
The sunlight is the reconciling force—bringing warmth, life, and transformation.
From these three, a sprout emerges—a whole new possibility.
Applying the Law of Three to Politics and Society
Most political discussions operate within a two-force system:
A political ideology, policy, or reform effort (affirming force).
The resistance to change, ideological counter-movement (denying force).
The reconciling force, however, remains hidden. It requires creative insight, patience, and the willingness to see beyond opposition. Throughout history, the third force has emerged in transformative ways:
When Nelson Mandela chose truth and reconciliation over revenge.
When Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance instead of hatred or passivity.
When conservatives and progressives united for criminal justice reform.
These were not compromises; they were transformations.
A Call to Engage Differently
If we want to move beyond polarization, we must recognize when we are stuck in dualism. Ask yourself:
Am I reinforcing opposition, or am I open to seeing a reconciling force?
Instead of asking, “Who is right?” can I ask, “What is trying to emerge?”
The Law of Three invites us into a higher way of seeing. It is not passive—it is a dynamic, creative process that requires active engagement, deep listening, and the willingness to allow something new to take form.
Transformation does not happen by choosing sides. It happens when we open ourselves to a third force—one that neither side controls, but that has the power to change everything.