Thoughts on the Fence

By Andrea Prudente

I would like to spend some time addressing what I will term moral or ethical “fence-sitting”. While I hesitate to refer to it as an affliction or syndrome, I believe it is a condition in our culture that, while it is not necessarily negative, it is usually not positive. What I mean by “fence-sitting” in this context is the practice of putting off forming opinions on, taking a stance about, or committing to a viewpoint or “side” (if there are sides) regarding important moral and ethical issues. Though it is sometimes difficult to discern in others (as its manifestations are often absences of manifestations), I have begun to believe ethical fence-sitting is widespread enough to warrant some serious consideration, if not on a social or academic level, at least individually. And if I am to be completely honest, this condition is of particular personal interest to me because I admittedly suffer from a mild case of it myself. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I am a selective fence-sitter—while there are a handful of issues I remain undecided on, it is not my general practice or politics to do so (for some people, it is). In what follows, I would like to look critically at what I take to be the ins and outs of ethical fence-sitting—what makes it possible, why people do it, some logistical questions, and its implications. While I do not intend to arrive at any definitive conclusion or resolution, I think there is some merit in the process of simply addressing the issue.

There seem to be more or less two types of fence sitting. There is thoughtful and often somewhat tortured fence-sitting wherein a person is conscious of their state of limbo and is actively thinking about and seeking information regarding the issues at hand (I will call this an “active” state). Most of us usually feel the active condition temporarily when a new ethical issue is brought to our attention or comes to the forefront of the political arena and we realize that we should form an opinion on it. First, however, we must gather relevant information and perspectives. This temporary state of undecided-ness following exposure to something new is not what I call fence-sitting. Rather, it is remaining in this state of limbo for a prolonged period of time which constitutes fence-sitting (what counts as “prolonged” can be up for interpretation). The active sitter is highly conscious of their rather precarious position, and it concerned with making the relevant moves in order to eventually move off the fence.

Then there is what I will call “passive” or complacent fence-sitting in which we can imagine a person has set up their lawn chair and cooler and is in it for the long haul. They are on the fence, and they are fine with that and are not working towards forming opinions and making important moral and ethical value decisions. In some senses, they have chosen their position, and that position is on the fence. In general, I do not think that one person is one type of fence-sitter all of the time. Rather, it is probably more often the case that the same person might be actively on the fence about a few issues, and passively on the fence about a handful of others.

It seems important to make a side note here that I think it highly likely that ethical fence-sitting is less of a problem for individuals who adhere strictly to a particular religious code or doctrine. For them, they may often look to their doctrine for appropriate values and stances regarding the relevant moral and ethical conundrums. We may see forming ethical views and opinions as a privilege and a duty and in many ways a burden—there is generally a lot at stake and values and morals are a key element in personhood and identity. It would be fairly uncontroversial to propose then that strong religious faith eases this burden to some degree by shifting responsibility from the individual to a transcendent and higher power.

Let us turn now to situations in which moral fence-sitters are forced to make decisions. Life events and political processes can often put us in positions in which we must address our ethical viewpoints and act accordingly—not committing is no longer a viable option. Let me explain: a person who has postponed forming her views about abortion discovers that they/their mother/sister/daughter/friend/partner has become unintentionally and undesirably pregnant. Or a person who has yet to decide what they think about euthanasia is faced with an elderly or ill loved one who wants to end his/her life. Or we may put off addressing any number of issues until legislation about those very issues appears on our local, state, or national ballots. (Granted, some extreme and committed fence-sitters may choose not to vote rather than do the necessary legwork to establish their ethical viewpoints).

Those who have been actively on the fence regarding the issues at hand may be fully or at least partially prepared to make decisions in such circumstances. But for passive fence-sitters, since they have not been seeking information and working toward committing to a viewpoint, conditions which make it suddenly imperative to make a decision are highly problematic. Perhaps there are some people who make really wise and informed decisions under pressure and with serious time constraints. But I think it probably more common that the most educated decisions, particularly on issues of significant moral weight, are made after careful consideration and some time devoted to stepping back and addressing it from several perspectives in order to thoroughly exhaust all possibilities. Like procrastinating on writing a paper or studying for an exam, some of us are good at it, others are not, but all must admit that waiting until faced with an imminent deadline limits the amount of resources available and increases the possibility that we will do/write/say/decide something we may not have done had we taken the time for significant reflection.

There are of course many moral and ethical issues which may never be accompanied by an event or circumstance which might make it necessary for fence-sitters to dismount and take a stance. These issues include but are not limited to lifestyle and environmentally relevant choices such as eating vegetarian or vegan, transportation practices (using public transit, bicycling, driving a hybrid, driving a hummer, etc.), chemical and pesticide use, and many more. Though Mother Nature will probably eventually force us to significantly refine our ways of living, in the very near future it is less likely that fence sitters will be nudged into decisions by life circumstances or political events regarding vegetarianism, for example, as opposed to the issues mentioned earlier.

In our culture (and I might venture to say in cultures in general) there emerge seemingly morally neutral or default positions on particular issues. That is, there are these strange sort of precarious (and imagined?) safe spaces in which a person can position herself such that she, because she is positioned in line with the majority, can feel she has not made a decision or is morally neutral. In these situations, there is no fence to be on, but we pretend there is. On an issue such as abortion, one can legitimately be undecided. But on an issue like vegetarianism or meat eating, what would represent being undecided—not eating? So it happens that if there are two sides, let’s say eating meat versus vegetarianism, being on the fence is indeed being part of one side, namely eating meat. We are at least partially willing to grant a person “undecided” or “on the fence” status if she eats meat but does not advocate for carnivore-ism in general, nor against vegetarianism.

But isn’t this imagined morally neutral space sort of a delusion? Just because something is or has become the norm, doesn’t make it value-neutral. I may tell myself that, because the majority of my culture eats meat, my not being a vegetarian is not taking a position…but isn’t it? At the very least by eating meat I am saying that I am not significantly morally opposed to eating meat/factory farming/killing animals etc.. We may grant that “Not Against” does not necessarily signify “For” in that it is not diametrically opposite of “Against”. But I am inclined to argue that “Not Against” is just as legitimately a moral position as “Against”. That is, I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we were to consider “Not Against” as a non-position.

I’d like to end by addressing the various reasons for ethical fence-sitting. First, taking a stance on significant ethical issues is almost always and inevitably accompanied by social conflicts and disagreement. It is the way of the universe that different people (intelligent people!) disagree on things, especially on things which involve high stakes and moral values. So one can imagine why someone, with a particularly strong aversion to conflict and confrontation, might try to refrain from taking stances and forming solid opinions on ethical issues—it may seem more costly to them to be vulnerable to conflict than to remain morally in limbo. Another option might be to keep one’s opinion to oneself. In either position, one could pose the counterargument that true friends and loved ones do not love you less if your ethical views differ from theirs. In fact, challenging and discussing our viewpoints is an important part of living socially and can serve to strengthen social bonds and moral convictions and prevent “living truth” from becoming “dead dogma”.

Another reason (excuse?) for remaining on the fence might be the desire to be highly informed and in possession of as much of the relevant information and background as possible before committing to a view. This is where my own personal fence-sitting falls. Like all decisions in my life, and perhaps even more so, I want my ethical values and opinions to be educated and solidly grounded—when someone asks me why I don’t eat meat or why I support the right to abortion, I want to be able to speak articulately and intelligently about that choice (partially for my own sake, and partially for the sake of inspiring others to follow suit). This may be a fairly legitimate reason if one is actively seeking the relevant information and perspectives which one thinks will aid in the process of coming to a decision. But it could easily be an excuse if a person says she is on the fence because she wants to get all the information, but is not interested in actually obtaining said information. (For the record, I think I generally fall into the former category).

And finally, why might so many people practice the art of ethical fence-sitting? Because we can. It is a luxury and a privilege to be sufficiently insulated from the injustices/risks/harms etc. accompanying the moral issues at hand such that it is possible to refrain from forming an opinion or taking a stance. To never experience an unwanted pregnancy, or not have any gay friends, or not live in a particularly polluted area, or not see poverty on a daily basis, or not see the cow get killed before it becomes a burger in your hand—it is this type of insular living that allows for people to remain uncommitted and uninvolved. I also think ethical fence-sitting is more or less feasible depending on the company one keeps. It is harder to remain on the fence when interacting regularly with people who are not and who are engaged in critical dialogue about complex ethical questions.

So how do we get people off the fence? Do we? Should we? Eventually I think fences collapse and social changes cause those imaged morally neutral spaces to decay. But should we wait for that? Should we wait for the ballot or the unwanted pregnancy or the terminally ill and suffering loved one to form important ethical opinions? Whatever we decide, it would serve us all well to consider our own relationship to the fence—if we discover that we are on it, let us carefully and frequently reflect on how and why we got there, what privileges that position embodies, and stop making excuses.