Nuance is not in fashion. In fact, many people rather find nuanced thinking annoying. The effort to evaluate and examine, with patience, the gradation of tones that exists in reality can be a bother, a waste of time, and even a danger for those who want to understand (and explain) the world in simple terms, in black and white. Simplistic people, of course, were not born yesterday: they have always existed. However, in our day, the accelerated pace of our digitized life encourages and facilitates, perhaps more than ever, simplistic thinking, threatening to turn nuance into a kind of relic of the past. In a world where any opinion on any subject should be able to be summarized in the 140 characters of a tweet, nuance has little chance of succeeding. It should not be surprising that it is not in fashion.
Let's face it: to simplify reality can be tempting. The simplistic narrative is easy to understand. Its characters are flat, their motivations, rough; their responses, predictable; their arguments, shallow. Consequently, in a simplified world it is very easy to choose sides and to distinguish between friends and adversaries, between truth and error, between good and evil.
To point out the nuances of life, on the other hand, demands time—and who has time, in our world of hustle and bustle? It requires that we listen to those who do not think like us, to understand the origins and the intricacies of their arguments. (“How painful,” the simplistic person will say.) It calls for our examination of the history of the processes about which we want to form an opinion. (“Really?” he will add.) Above all, when we begin to think in nuanced ways, we can encounter unpleasant surprises. We may discover, for example, that “our people” have not always been perfect and that “the others” were not always wrong! And so, because of nuance, the black and white narrative can become damaged, and that scares us. To think in nuanced ways reveals a reality full of ambiguities and ambivalences.
The truth, of course, is that a simplified world, however pleasant, will always be a mere caricature of the real world. The vision of those who never point at nuance can offer a semblance of comfort, but it is a myopic vision; and in the end, ignoring the nuance of things will always be an attempt, inevitably treacherous, to reduce complex phenomena for our convenience. Like it or not, life is complex, and the nuance, therefore, essential.
Without it, we have many possibilities of falling into ignorance: nuance is a potent antidote against fanaticism. In addition, a society that stops thinking about things with depth and subtlety becomes sick with shallowness, and will soon discover that it lacks the necessary tools to face its challenges, because no serious problem will ever be solved by denying its complexity.
To think in nuances, therefore, is not an option: it is an obligation. And it is an obligation, especially, for those in leadership. To have a political class which thinks in gross generalities is among the worst thing that can happen to a country, and the sad spectacle of presidents who play at governing from their twitter account is a mockery to its citizens. Today, unfortunately, the list of countries guided by political classes that despise the art of being nuanced seems to increase.
In this context, it seems to us that it is critical to applaud the nuance. We need a passionate commendation of the art of nuancing: yes, a commendation of this annoying, old fashioned, boring, uncomfortable—and absolutely essential— art, without which we would return to the Stone Age or the Inquisition. The desire to point to nuance characterized neither our prehistoric ancestors nor the fanatical and myopic defenders of orthodoxy.
Let's face it: to simplify reality can be tempting. The simplistic narrative is easy to understand. Its characters are flat, their motivations, rough; their responses, predictable; their arguments, shallow. Consequently, in a simplified world it is very easy to choose sides and to distinguish between friends and adversaries, between truth and error, between good and evil.
To point out the nuances of life, on the other hand, demands time—and who has time, in our world of hustle and bustle? It requires that we listen to those who do not think like us, to understand the origins and the intricacies of their arguments. (“How painful,” the simplistic person will say.) It calls for our examination of the history of the processes about which we want to form an opinion. (“Really?” he will add.) Above all, when we begin to think in nuanced ways, we can encounter unpleasant surprises. We may discover, for example, that “our people” have not always been perfect and that “the others” were not always wrong! And so, because of nuance, the black and white narrative can become damaged, and that scares us. To think in nuanced ways reveals a reality full of ambiguities and ambivalences.
The truth, of course, is that a simplified world, however pleasant, will always be a mere caricature of the real world. The vision of those who never point at nuance can offer a semblance of comfort, but it is a myopic vision; and in the end, ignoring the nuance of things will always be an attempt, inevitably treacherous, to reduce complex phenomena for our convenience. Like it or not, life is complex, and the nuance, therefore, essential.
Without it, we have many possibilities of falling into ignorance: nuance is a potent antidote against fanaticism. In addition, a society that stops thinking about things with depth and subtlety becomes sick with shallowness, and will soon discover that it lacks the necessary tools to face its challenges, because no serious problem will ever be solved by denying its complexity.
To think in nuances, therefore, is not an option: it is an obligation. And it is an obligation, especially, for those in leadership. To have a political class which thinks in gross generalities is among the worst thing that can happen to a country, and the sad spectacle of presidents who play at governing from their twitter account is a mockery to its citizens. Today, unfortunately, the list of countries guided by political classes that despise the art of being nuanced seems to increase.
In this context, it seems to us that it is critical to applaud the nuance. We need a passionate commendation of the art of nuancing: yes, a commendation of this annoying, old fashioned, boring, uncomfortable—and absolutely essential— art, without which we would return to the Stone Age or the Inquisition. The desire to point to nuance characterized neither our prehistoric ancestors nor the fanatical and myopic defenders of orthodoxy.
