The word nuance is used a lot of late. To be somewhat cynical for a moment, I’d say the term is frequently used to suggest a flexibility, complexity and depth that isn’t actually present.
Part of the reason I wanted to share my musings in this space, is that I sometimes perceive a lack of nuance in the public discourses I encounter.
Take politics, when did you last hear someone airing their support for a candidate, or their grievances against their opponent, whilst simultaneously recognising problematic areas in their side, or the opposition’s merits? It would be rare to 100% agree with every policy a politician puts forward, so to find a defence for everything they do has to be more tribalism than genuine belief.
Likewise, in my experience of faith and religion, rarely are unanswered questions or recognition of contradictions in holy texts sat with comfortably.
Even in more private settings, imagine if we all held (and expressed) our feelings and perspectives confidently, while recognising how our own biases and faults are contributing to both the situation, and our perception of it.
Or, take a contentious public issue like abortion as one example. Have you ever heard an anti-abortionist recognise that pro-choice campaigners are also fighting for the value and dignity of human life? Or on the other hand have you heard a pro-abortionist recognise the logical argument that if society highly values infants, a foetus weeks away from birth might also have value.
To see people with opposing views as ill-intentioned, bigoted (even when these descriptions are in some way apt) and as 100% wrong, may not get us very far. It seems there’s an almost inherent fear that to concede, to genuinely explore, and to hold firm convictions lightly, is to gravely compromise morality, truth and progress. But can I suggest that the ability to compromise, to question, to listen and to honestly explore, might be the path to unity and progress that ultimately benefits all sides.
Humour me for a moment with this analogy: There’s a story in the Christian Bible (1 Kings 3:16-28), where two women come to a judge arguing over who is the mother of a baby. The judge rules: cut it in half and take equal share. The woman who is not the mother inadvertently reveals herself by agreeing to the absurd judgement. She does this because she is more committed to being justified in her position than to actually seeing a decent outcome. The real mother concedes to relinquish the child to her opposer because she recognised that option as a the most realistic positive outcome in the situation. In the end the judge awards the true mother her child, not because she staunchly clung to her (albeit in this case objectively correct) position, but because she inadvertently revealed truth by taking a nuanced approach and finding compromise.
Intelligent and honest nuance doesn’t water down an issue, it simmers it down, revealing common ground, hidden realities, and acknowledging complexities. It often helps illuminate a way forward that is otherwise concealed. For me, the idea of adopting real nuance gives me hope and guides me in my pursuit of truth, dialogues and contemplation of issues.
