By Shloimy Lowy, Photographer and Staff Writer
nu·ance:
a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
“In trying to reject black-and-white thinking, we risk letting the pendulum swing to the opposite extreme: becoming so heavy-handed with nuance that we lose the ability to remain strong in our beliefs,” writes Meira Novick, in an article entitled “Lost in Nuance” in The Commentator’s October edition. Novick eloquently argues that society has become so imbued with nuance that people no longer feel comfortable sharing their own opinions.
With this point I am completely onboard; people must feel comfortable voicing their opinions if we are to have constructive dialogue, however strong or unsavory those opinions are. If we are not honest with each other, we cannot proceed in conversation in any meaningful way. However, it is the assumptions underlying her argument and the condescending tone it can take on which gave me pause.
Novick’s primary argument hinges upon the assumption that there are certain topics to which adding nuance is improper and invalid. That there are opinions so extreme, ideas so dangerous, that any claimed nuance could only be a cover for something darker or a cover of true opinions to sound enlightened. According to her, this would include opinions “rooted in violence.” The example she cites is “whether individuals with radical or even terrorist sympathies should be accepted in our community.” I take this to mean, in the most conservative interpretation I can muster, that arguments which explicitly support terror groups like Hamas ought to be silenced or ignored, no nuance to be added or heard out.
Now, while disagreeing with this particular example is besides the point, I cannot help but point out that the case cited perfectly encapsulates the problem with this line of reasoning. This is because, like it or not, there is nuance to be had with the issue of terrorist sympathies. Saying that there is no place in our communities for people with terrorist sympathies is a valid opinion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t accept the complexities of those views. Ignoring the nuances of those opinions is ignoring the legitimate complaints of those you call “terrorist sympathizers.”
As the old adage goes, one man’s terrorist sympathies are another man’s nuanced opinion that you disagree with. If you believe that only opinions you think have nuance are nuanced, then you are not complex, you’re pretending to be enlightened. The very point of nuance, and why it’s useful in conversation, is that it encourages you to hear out someone you don’t necessarily agree with. It is about understanding that every position, no matter how ridiculous, has complexity and, if honestly held and sincerely argued, deserves to be engaged with.
Another issue I have with this argument is that it can easily take on a condescending tone. There is an argument to be made that some people use nuance as a cover for being insincere. When this is occurring, when people put on an appearance of intelligence by adding nuance where none is required, we should be wary. However, by overemphasizing this point, one runs the risk of discounting any nuance one disagrees with by saying that “they don’t really believe it.” I have had that condescending line directed at me more times than I can count, and, aside from causing that terribly invalidating feeling that my opinion is so extreme that no sane person could possibly hold it, it is a conversation killer. It comes off as a dishonest attempt by the other side to ignore the substance of an idea they cannot defend against.
Most important of all, no matter how convinced you are of your own position — even if you think it is fundamental to who you are or what you stand for — refusing to engage with the nuance of the other side will never lead to a resolution. Whether you want to partake in a conversation that you feel is contrary to your beliefs is up to you. If you judge a position too dangerous to validate, it is within your right to ignore it. But you can only ignore bad ideas for so long. Eventually, they will come banging down your door. One day your close friend will express a belief you see as fundamentally in conflict with your own morality. Perhaps your child will hold a belief you find reprehensible. You can choose to ignore these ideas now, but there will come a time when opposing beliefs will hit you in the face. Then, you will have to choose: either continue your non-engagement principle and risk disrupting the equilibrium of a relationship, or accept that there truly is nuance in everything, and hear out that person in your life.
We all have things we find absolutely wrong. We all (I hope) have strong values. But the ability to hear out another person, no matter how extreme their views, is paramount to developing ironclad relationships with the people we love, and it is also necessary for the eradication of those evil ideas. As for the impulse to protect oneself from being influenced by those bad ideas, ultimately I believe in the first pillar on which YU stands, the pillar of Torat Emet (truth). Bad ideas can only be eradicated by exposure to truer ideas. And hopefully, the evil core of those terrible arguments will be survived only by the slivers of truth found in their nuances.
Photo Credit: Unsplash