In Praise of Nuance
Why complexity, uncertainty and dialogue matter even more in an age of binary thinking
Anthropologists studying different Inuit and Yupik languages have found that they have many words to describe snow. For instance, Inuits living in Canada’s Nunavik region have at least 53 words in their dialect to describe snow including words like ‘matsaaruti’ for wet snow that can be used to ice a sleigh’s runners” or ‘pukak’ for crystalline powder snow that looks like salt. Similarly, the Sámi people, who live in the northern parts of Scandinavia and Russia, use more than 180 words to describe snow and ice and about 1,000 words for reindeer. Such a profusion of words highlights the complexity and richness of reality, as well as our varied experiences of it. Indeed, snow is not solely a single objective reality, but it is a complex situated set of experiences that vary across individuals and contexts. This is why the anthropologist Clifford Geertz invited us to develop ‘thick descriptions’, or descriptions that include extensive details and acknowledge that human actions are always situated and can mean many different things.
The cost of simplicity
Developing thick descriptions might seem a laborious and boring task, and definitely at odds with today’s communication mores and norms: shorter and shorter number of characters, content optimization, fast news, etc. As a consequence, we see an increasing polarization of opinions on various topics ranging from environmental and social issues to health and politics. On any subject, we can only be for or against, right or wrong, thus leaving no space for ambiguity, uncertainty, and interpretation. It has been well established that this polarization reduces, and even destroys, tolerance, dialogue, and the possibility of deliberation, central to the democratic process.
I argue that there are ways to go beyond the polarizations of the extremes and engage in dialogue, and this is by embracing nuance. Writing and talking with nuance invites us to make distinctions and to recognize variations, even subtle ones. More deeply, nuance is at the core of critical thinking. Thus, we need nuance to make sense of the increasingly pressing social and environmental issues our world is facing. Developing a nuanced analysis is required to unveil the complex relationships between different elements involved, and to engage multiple stakeholders, all with different interests and expertise, to develop solutions for our complex societal problems.
Embracing nuance requires courage
Praising nuance might seem counterproductive to some as it is often considered as a weakness. Being nuanced can be seen as refusing to take a stance or to commit to one’s position, avoiding to disagree and preferring to arrive at a lukewarm consensus. On the contrary, I would argue that embracing nuance requires courage: the courage to recognize that things are complex and ambiguous, and that we might not have the full picture today (and even not tomorrow). It takes courage to go beyond a catchy headline and to take time to analyze situations and develop thick descriptions, descriptions that we might need to revisit as we learn more. It takes courage to be open-minded and curious, continuously asking questions and being willing to challenge our assumptions.
Embracing nuance is also an invitation to dialogue. By asking us to develop detailed and subtle points of views, sometimes including contrasting elements, nuance leaves the door open for someone to disagree, but also to discover possible areas of convergence. In that sense, nuance allows us to go beyond polarized discourses and controversies: we might have different perspectives and disagree, yet this does not mean that we cannot discuss, on the contrary!
Reasonable doubt, deliberative dialogue
One great example of how nuance can lead to dialogue and collaborative deliberation is the movie 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet. The film portrays twelve jury members who discuss a supposedly clear-cut homicide trial, where the defendant faces a death sentence if found guilty. At the start of the deliberation, the jurors are nearly unanimous, except for Juror 8 who votes not guilty. He does so not because he is certain that the defendant is not guilty, but because he has a reasonable doubt and believes the case deserves more consideration: “I don’t want to change your mind. I just want to talk for a while.” The rest of the movie shows the jurors revisiting their assumptions, examining ungrounded claims made during the trial, with each juror bringing in their expertise and point of view. In the end, they unanimously voted ‘not guilty’. Juror 8’s willingness to question assumptions shows how nuance is a balancing act which acknowledges the plurality of perspectives and invites deliberation instead of controversy. To practice nuance is to move away from binary oppositions and invectives; it opens up a space for dialogue, constructive debate, and critical thinking.
“We suffocate among people who believe they are absolutely right”
— Albert Camus, 1948
Originally published April 2024 in Portuguese by Observador