Primo Levi once described the “gray zone”—a space where the line between “victim” and “perpetrator” blurs. In this zone, he observed, “the long chain of conjunction between victim and executioner comes loose, where the oppressed becomes oppressor and the executioner in turn appears as victim” (Levi in Agamben, 1999:21).
I find myself often drawn to this idea of complex, shifting roles that people navigate in zones of contention. And by “zones of contention,” I don’t just mean war zones. I’m also thinking of the quieter, more everyday spaces: families, friendships, communities — places where “victims” and “perpetrators” can exist in countless forms, with many shades of gray in between. For me, Levi’s idea isn’t a strict framework; it’s more like a lens, one that lets us explore those murky, in-between spaces where “right” and “wrong” are harder to define.
In a world where complexity often gets flattened into extremes, I turn to the gray zones when I need a reminder that hope can still exist, even when things feel polarized.
Today’s Exercise
With this lens in mind, I invite you to take a fresh look at the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. No matter where you currently stand—whether you see one candidate as “right” and the other as “wrong”—try exploring the gray zones that might help you live with the outcome.
Is there a policy from the other side you can respect? Or an element of the other candidate’s story that reveals something more human?
This exercise isn’t about denying preferences. I’ve voted too, and I know where I stand. But finding these gray zones helps me stay grounded, and allows hope to remain an option, no matter the outcome.
What gray zones do you see in this election?
Where might you find an unexpected point of connection?
Is there a policy from the other side you can respect?
Yes. I am a liberal thinker, but my problem with my party is - I feel we have ignored the millions of people largely in the middle class who have lost their jobs and struggle to make ends meet. Where once they only needed one salary to live their very conventional lives, they now need two salaries, with massive child-care costs. When manufacturing jobs were lost overseas, when robotics and AI took over such jobs, when opioid addiction became endemic... people in these circumstances grew desperate and looked for the person who talked their language and focused the campaign on them. To such people, climate change policies (which takes away fossil fuel jobs), DEI and unchecked immigration are the enemy to their own hope for their 'American Dream'.
I do not think the other side has a good answer to this problem either, but I cannot ignore the fact that we did not do much to help people in these situations.