Word of Wisdom: Compromise
“All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” Edmund Burke
In late 2020, one of the most sophisticated and startling cyberattacks in U.S. history was made public. “The SolarWinds hack”, as it’s come to be known, is believed to be the work of a Russian-backed group with a data breach that impacted thousands of organizations, including Fortune 500 corporations and numerous agencies of the U.S. federal government.
According to innumerable articles, the hack led to the “compromise of countless victims”.
Over the past fifteen years, the rise of groups publishing news leaks and classified media has led to numerous data dumps that have impacted not just news cycles, but also foreign relations and national security.
Individuals in the intelligence community or working covertly in combat zones have been harmed by these dumps when their “identities were compromised”.
Of course, many of us are familiar with the problem of identity theft online and the prevalence of credit cards, bank accounts, and social security numbers being “compromised”.
A headline with the words “network” and “compromise” is rarely an encouraging read.
Perhaps it’s in part why our politics in the Internet Age have become so seemingly binary—us/them, good/bad, for us/against us, all the while compromise becoming a pejorative term, representing weakness or a loss of security and trust. In many ways, it is a technocratic approach to the word; more cold, calculating, and algorithmic than the warm-blooded flexibility required by the hot mess that is humanity.
As political journalists have inquired over the past two decades, “When did the word compromise become compromised?”
This negative connotation is even more surprising when we consider that a new beginning—indeed life itself—requires a compromise of sorts for its emergence. The membrane of a human ovum must be compromised, as it were, by a spermatozoon. Innovation occurs when “outside-the-box” thinking…well…compromises the integrity of the box.
Even the cherished bicameral legislature of the United States’ constitutional republic—wherein compromise has become so anathema—would not exist today in its current form were it not for something referred to as the (gasp) “Connecticut Compromise”.
Life, and the management of life, seems to require some form of “reaching a compromise”—coming to a place where a few things are released so that others can be gained.
Just as importantly, reconciliation might require it. To quote Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda and a central figure in what is perhaps one of history’s most astonishing examples of national healing and social progress: “Let no one think that flexibility and a predisposition to compromise is a sign of weakness or a sell-out.”
How is it that a term can mean something necessary and fundamental, while a moment later represent something negative, if not catastrophic? Let’s start at the root-level, so to speak.
The English word compromise from the fifteenth century onward meant “a joint promise to abide by a mediator’s decision”. All of us have experienced this from childhood ‘til now; whether a parent, teacher, coach, boss, HR exec, a regulator, or a judge, we’ve had to abide by others’ decisions so that we can end a dispute or negotiation and move forward. Indeed, every job we’ve held or new position we’ve accepted is a compromise: a promise to give x amount of our time and energy for y amount of money.
Digging deeper, we discover even more.
The Latin origin of our word, compromittere, meant “to make a mutual promise” (to abide by an arbiter’s decision); and, hence, “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions”. It is a combination of two words: com-, meaning “with or together”, and promittere, “to send forth, let go, assure, promise”.
Interestingly, this word promittere—from which we get promise—was a combination of pro- (“forward”) and mittere (“to send, release, let go”).
Sounds quite liberating, don’t you think?
Perhaps the real question begins to come into focus, and it’s not whether compromise is good or bad, a virtue or a vice. Rather, the inquiry may be more along the lines of: “To whom—or what—am I making promises? To whom—or what—am I letting go?”
From the moment our forebears made the first compromise with other than the Creator—the first mis-directed agreement with someone, something other than the Holy One—we have been stuck making agreements with others, with things, with ourselves that lead to bondage. We agree with the internal and external voices that we are not enough, not worthy, not able, and so we compromise—we make promises to that voice—that we’ll do better tomorrow, that we’ll never do it again, that we are owed this forbidden fruit…that we’ll never let the secret out.
Thankfully, the Creator is not above compromise. He engages with his sons even when they have walked off. He sets out promises jointly made with those he loves. He is open to negotiation, and is always ready to reason together. He recognizes the differences that exist in the relationship, but is ready to make concessions in order to bridge the divide. And he is faithful to mediate…and abide by his promises.
He is a Father who invites his sons into a compromise, into a new agreement; one in which, if we are willing to let go, we will be sent forth, not just to greener pastures, but to grander purpose. Not just into “freedom from”, but “freedom to”—the proper abode for sons of the Holy One.
That is a compromise we can live with. I promise.
“This is my comfort in my affliction: your promise has given me life.” Psalm 119:50