Nuance is your friend
Published on March 19, 2004 By O G San In International
If I could steal another Joeuser’s name it would be shadesofgrey. I’ve always believed that there’s more to life than black and white; that nuance, subtlety and context are important when appraising any situation. I’ve always suspected those who assume to possess The Truth, who believe themselves to be completely right and noble and their opponents to be entirely wrong and evil.

Currently I’m ploughing through John Pilger’s “Hidden Agendas”, an expose of the underhand actions of western governments and the media’s complicity in covering them up. In some ways it’s a fine read, full of surprising new facets to “well-known” events. Yet I can’t say I’m enjoying reading Pilger. The man’s black-whiteness (to coin a phrase) is infuriating. In his mind, western states are always greedy, lying, thieving scoundrels. Their victims are always pure and admirable. No disruption of this dichotomy is ever allowed.

I think my aversion to black-whiteness comes from my upbringing in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The society I grew up in was not so much black and white as green and orange. The long and intense struggle between nationalism and unionism led understandably to both sides seeing the world as a zero-sum struggle between “us” and “them”. Any advantage for the one was assumed to mean a loss for the other. If “they” were happy about something then “we” should be unhappy, this was the only proper reaction. The notion that the Good Friday Agreement could be beneficial to both sides is a concept which many still struggle against.

When debating with the other side, the aim was never to concede ground, “not an inch”, as the old unionist maxim goes. For unionists their ideology was 100% true and good while nationalism was 100% false and debased, and vice versa. The thought that the other side’s ideology had some merit, that their fears and grievances were reasonable, had to be dismissed.

To maintain such an attitude it’s necessary to close off one’s mind, to dispel all doubts about one‘s politics. This, I suppose, is the mentality of war. If you happen to be cornered by a hungry tiger, such a mentality would stand you in good stead. But to live like that forever, to always act as if at war, is a debilitating condition.

In the past ten years the peace process has led to a slow change in this black and white mentality in Northern Ireland. Elsewhere in the world though the trend has been in the opposite direction. The upsurge in religious fundamentalism across the world has fuelled this tendency. Fundamentalists of whichever stripe share at least one common trait, the view that the world is divided into the pure “us” and the damned “them”. For fundamentalists their religion is right, 100% right. All other points of view are wrong, 100% wrong.

This fundamentalism is far from a purely Muslim phenomenon. It’s Jewish, through the Uzi-toting settlers of Hebron, it’s Protestant, through the Darwin deniers in America, it’s Buddhist through the belligerent monks of Sri Lanka, and it’s Hindu through the hardliners of India’s BJP. We live, unfortunately, in a time of religious revival across the world, a veritable counter-Enlightenment, a new era of black-whiteness.

This fundamentalism is perhaps most notable in the activities of Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Al-Qaida, as I argued in a previous blog, divide the world into a tiny “us” of “good” Muslims and a vast “them” of everyone else. Reading Bin Laden’s pronouncements one has the unmistakable impression that we, as a species, have let him down. We are a fallen planet and only he can bring us back to the right path.

Across the Atlantic the religious fundamentalism of Bin Laden is met by the black-whiteness of Bush’s neo-con cabal. Their god is not Allah, nor Jesus, but power. For them the spread of American economic, military and political hegemony across the globe is their divine mission. America, or rather their America, is always noble, pure and true. That such a wonderful country should dominate the world is, they believe, best for all concerned. Any who stand in the way of this grand plan, be they Saddam or Chirac, are “evil”.

This worldview was given voice immediately after 9-11 when Bush stated plainly: “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. No quarter is given to overseas allies who wish to attack terrorism differently. By Bush’s logic, France is “with the terrorists”. Likewise, for the millions of Americans who oppose the Iraq war or the PATRIOT Act, there is bad news. According to Bush, they too are “with the terrorists”.

When the Bushies mention terrorism no explanation is ever given for its existence beyond “evil”. No acknowledgement of the messy reality that terrorism, however terrible, comes from political realities rather than the failing of human morality. No acceptance that the US has ever behaved immorally anywhere in the world. No, it’s goodies against baddies, just like when you were a kid.

These two fundamentalisms, political Islam and neo-conservatism are at loggerheads. Black and white are clashing but they produce not shades of grey but torrents of red. The blood of innocents flows in cities across the world, in New York, in Kabul, in Bali, in Baghdad and now in Madrid.

The violence of one feeds the violence of the other. The more al-Qaida attacks the West, the more people there look on Islam in general and Muslims in particular as their mortal foe. The more bombs the US drops in the Middle East, the more Muslims see the West as their eternal enemy. One thing we know only too well in Northern Ireland is that violence, once initiated, has a dynamic of its own. Each death embitters, polarises and divides, making further death more likely.

Somehow both sides, Islam and the West, must abandon the idea that they are 100% in the right. For the West this means accepting that it has sown the seeds of terrorism through decades of support for repressive Arab regimes and for Israel’s slow-motion ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. It also means going back to the old-fashioned idea of war as a last resort.

For the Islamic world it means taking some of the blame for the backward state of Arab regimes. The fact that they are poor, corrupt and repressive is not just America and Israel’s fault. Also it means accepting that, no matter what your grievance, murdering civilians is not acceptable.

Comments
on Mar 19, 2004
You right very well. I have been amazed at the change in Ireland since the Good Friday agreements. I'm glad to hear that there is still progress. I visited Northern Ireland in 1999. I could feel the tension, but I didn't feel unsafe. I wish that the United States would do the same for Israel as Tony Blair did for Ireland.
on Mar 19, 2004
Sorry, I forgot to reread it before I posted. You write very well.
on Mar 19, 2004
Excellent blog OG San -- as per usual--

and should I decide to leave JoeUser, I shall bequeath my username to you.
on Mar 19, 2004
This is not a criticism of you or your writing per se, merely an observation and a couple questions. I will say that you speak well for yourself, albeit a little cliche at times.

Is this blog your absolute belief? Do you have it figured out that nuances exist and there is no black and white?

That, to me, is the interesting thing about beliefs. Each person has a totality of beliefs whether it's in the black / white realm or in the shades of gray realm. But none the less, the each figure that their view of the world is right and correct even if that means that their view is that there is no right and correct view of totality. While your viewpoint doesn't put you in the black / white realm, it puts you in the shades of gray realm which is essentially either the black or the white of those two different philosophies.

I equate this thinking to that of people who encourage diversity. The champions of diversity would normally fit well in the "shades of grey" mentality. Their problem is that generally, the diversity they seek is that diversity which fits into their ideological spectrum. The diversity lovers really don't like that spectrum of diversity that is say, conservative, although that philosophy exists within the "total" range of what is diverse.

Which leads me to the question, do you consider black (really, really dark gray) and white (really, really light gray) to exist at the far ends of the spectrum in your shades of gray?

VES
on Mar 19, 2004
You go a long way to describe why the people we are opposed to feel their racial hatred. Oddly though on another blog, you seem to make no attempt at all to understand why an American would have prejudiced ideas.

So, when Palestinian terrorists hate Jews, we have to go out of our way to be warm and fuzzy, but when an American hates Jews, you say " Your opinions are beneath contempt, I won't dignify them by responding. "

Wow, OG San. I think that's very "Bushy" of you. Now if we can get you feeling that way about Arab or European racists, you might be productive politically. Probably won't happen, though, because your opinions are engineered to a particular frame-of-reference to make you "cool".
on Mar 19, 2004
O G San: Better watch out, you’re lining up to be my favourite blogger!

VES: I think you’re missing the point here. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but there is no black/white OR shades of grey realm. The points in between black and white are grey, e.g. most things exists between the absolutes. I know that I’m stating the obvious, but you are constructing a false set of opposites here.
I’m also curious as to what you mean by “diversity lovers”. What’s your view on diversity? Is it a bad thing / good thing? Whatever baggage you bring from past discussions, don’t let it cloud your view in other posts.
on Mar 19, 2004
VES: I think you’re missing the point here. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but there is no black/white OR shades of grey realm. The points in between black and white are grey, e.g. most things exists between the absolutes. I know that I’m stating the obvious, but you are constructing a false set of opposites here.
I’m also curious as to what you mean by “diversity lovers”. What’s your view on diversity? Is it a bad thing / good thing? Whatever baggage you bring from past discussions, don’t let it cloud your view in other posts.


Sorry, no baggage or clouds here. Not sure why you would bring that up, unless you are trying to discredit my opinion with rhetoric rather than addressing what I said. Perhaps you are missing the point, or perhaps I'm just looking at it from a different angle than you.

And you aren't being condescending, you are just expressing an opinion based on your view of the world and how you think it works, which is exactly the point I'm making. You THINK there is no black and white. It doesn't fit how you view the world. Others THINK there is. That's diversity in a nutshell. You are taking the position that your way of thinking about this topic is absolutely right. The obvious thing that you are stating, is your beliefs, not necessarily how the world really is.

My view on diversity is that it exists. It cannot help but to exist with the plethora of people and cultures in the world. It is neither something to be praised nor to be condemned. By diversity lovers I mean those people who preach we need more diversity (mostly liberals in the US), until they come across a kind of diversity they don't like. Diversity exists, there is no "need" for it. It will be there regardless of whether it's wanted or not wanted.

And the problem will ALWAYS be that when one person (or nation's) diversity clashes with another person's (or nation's) diversity, eventually someone will be willing to draw a sword to resolve the difference. Unless you are wiling to be beat down, I would imagine you would respond with violence if you were attacked, or if the right circumstances exist. Virtually everyone will. It's that primitive brain that everyone has promoting survival. The difference exists only where one draws the line in the sand, and everyone's line is in a different place.

The absolutist believes their world view to be correct. The "shades of gray-ist" believes their view of the world is correct. Neither can prove definitively that they ACTUALLY have a grasp on how things are REALLY supposed to work.

VES
on Mar 20, 2004
BakerStreet,

"You go a long way to describe why the people we are opposed to feel their racial hatred"

Actually, I don't mention race in the blog at all, I talk about politics and religion. I'm quite happy to discuss why certain Americans may dislike certain other races but always on the premise that THIS IS WRONG.

I don't think hating Jews is acceptable regardless of who is doing it. I think describing Palestinian violence as anti-Semitic is ignoring the main issue, the occupation of Palestinian land. That is not to say that some Palestinians are not anti-Semitic. Unfortunately some are. But the conflict would go on if the Israelis were Sikhs or Buddhists.

"Now if we can get you feeling that way about Arab or European racists, you might be productive politically."

I don't know what "productive" means in this context. Who are the Arab and European racists to whom you refer? Where, in any of my blogs, did I say that racism was acceptable?

"your opinions are engineered to a particular frame-of-reference to make you "cool"."

I long ago gave up any pretence of being cool.
on Mar 20, 2004
Corio,

Thanks for your kind words.

VES,

Interesting point. I'm no expert at the more philosophical stuff but I suppose what distinguishes a shadesofgreyer from a blackwhiter is the idea that they may be wrong. That there could be another Truth, or many Truths, or no Truth. A blackwhiter would always believe that they had the Truth.

I suppose there could be such a thing as an absolute relativist, someone who always applies realtivity to everything. In their own way such a person would be a balckwhiter
on Mar 20, 2004
"I think describing Palestinian violence as anti-Semitic is ignoring the main issue, the occupation of Palestinian land. "

If you ignore the inherent, cultural anti-Semitism within the Islamic faith. I was referring to your exchange with JeremyG on his blog, where you summarily dismissed his opinion. You can be a blackwhiter when you want.

"A blackwhiter would always believe that they had the Truth."

You have the luxury of deciding not to find an absolute end. so you can pretend that "truth" is what it is about. There is no "truth", only "belief". My thoughts on it are here.

If you were in a position of power, you would eventually have to condense all your subjective belief into a single course of action. If you waited for truth, or all these conflicting "grey" ideas to add up to a solution, you would never do anything. You may understand that terrorists feel this way or that way because or this or that, but in the end you have to decide how to deal with them. You call it black and white because you have the luxury of standing in the middle, of being 'grey' and critiquing those who have to decide.

The kind of open-mindedness you promote seeks to excuse everything, and allows no action at all. There will always be something else to "understand", some excuse not to act. In the end, I would much rather have a decisive leader, than a 'thinker' crippled by self-doubt and fear of not catering to every interest involved.
on Mar 21, 2004
VES: Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree that diversity exists, I was just making a rhetorical point.

I think you've misread me when you state that I'm thinking my view on this topic is the only "right" one. I'm not arguing WHETHER "black or white" or "shades of grey" is the right view. I KNOW that there is black and white. After all, how could the shades of grey exist without these absolutes?

In the human mind we construct opposites as black/white, light/dark good/evil. It is necessary in order to organize and process the vast amounts of information we are subjected to. My point is that in real life, things are rarely that simple. In thought, it is easy and manageble to deal in absolutes. In action, things become more complicated. We are faced with other concerns that obscure our clear thinking.

In the quest for truth, enlightenment (or whatever you want to call it), it is necessary to abandon the locked view of absolutes and to search the grey areas in between. True, somethings are simply black or white. But you won't know that until you've considered the alternatives, will you?

Of course these are only my views on things and as such, not facts. But isn't that what we're all talking about? If I didn't believe that, i'd be a priest.

on Mar 21, 2004
Very nice post OG san.

It make me think that manichean approaches are often used a way to oversimplify problem to make people opinion go into their way of thinking. It is easier and efficient specialy in crisis when people get confused by violence. It's always harder to build than destroy unfoirtunatly...
on Mar 21, 2004
BakerStreet,

"If you ignore the inherent, cultural anti-Semitism within the Islamic faith"

And Christianity has a better record on this issue? Relations between Muslim, Christian and Jew were quite good in Palestine in the pre-Zionism days.

"so you can pretend that "truth" is what it is about. There is no "truth", only "belief". "

Huh? I said that a blackwhiter believes in one truth, their truth. I'm sceptical about the idea of truth, it's a very complex issue. I certainly don't pretend that truth is what it's all about.

"You may understand that terrorists feel this way or that way because or this or that, but in the end you have to decide how to deal with them"

Yes I agree, and you can deal with them better if you understand them. What's black and white is to say "they're evil" and leave it at that as if that's a good enough analysis.

"The kind of open-mindedness you promote seeks to excuse everything"

"Excuse" and "understand" are not the same.