The Most Overlooked Form of Dishonesty
Reaching for Generalities when Specifics would Do
Upon watching numerous news channels, countless YouTube debates, and generally just engaging with others around me, I have come to observe a form of dishonesty that is rarely called out. This dishonesty compromises the quality of said discourse and serves to muddy our understanding of that which is most important.
The type of dishonesty I am talking about is not one that is always detected. And as such, it is necessarily more pervasive. It hangs about longer when more ostentatious forms of dishonesty would have been ousted.
What I am talking about can be summed up thusly:
Using general or abstract language when more specific, precise language is available, is a form of dishonesty.
You see, the world is a complex place composed of billions of shades of grey. And specific, precise language does best at conveying said world and the events and characters that constitute it. Abstract, general language, on the other hand, is by nature crude and insufficient in conveying details of the real world accurately.
Rather, abstractions and generalisations are to be reserved for formulating theories and rules. But not for commenting truthfully on instances of reality.
You might notice a cheap trick played by those with weak arguments. In such cases, those who are unable to make a point with the plain, specific language at hand, will replace such language with abstracts and generalisations.
This allows them to obscure the truth and makes it harder for their opponent to find fault in their argumentation, for generalities cover more ground than specifics and when invoked are more difficult to argue against. In addition, generalities often come with a number of connotations, positive or negative, which are not always found in the specific. Hence, invoking an abstract colours the argument with connotations that might not otherwise have existed.
To illustrate what I mean, I will invoke the aid of three general, abstract words whose invocation leads to a wealth of muddled thinking and confusion.
The first word in question is racism.
Racism
Racism, as we all know, is a bad thing. To be referred to as racist is a damning indictment, and one of the worst labels one can acquire.
But unfortunately the word has been bent out of all meaning. The word has so many different interpretations that it is difficult to know what someone precisely means when they use it.
Does racism mean viewing different races as genetically inferior? Does it mean routinely levelling hatred to those based on race?
Or does it mean having an inherent preference for one’s own culture over others, like something akin to family loyalty? Or disregarding politically correct prescriptions of behaviour and freely commenting on race and culture without being overly sensitive?
Or perhaps it means favouring political action that disincentives immigration?
Perhaps there is one of these above examples that suits your own idea of what you understand racism to be. Perhaps you have your own go-to definition. But the problem is, everyone’s interpretation is different.
So when we invoke the word racism, we are welcoming confusion into our debate. Whenever possible, it would be far better to specifically and precisely describe the act for what it plainly is, rather than invoke such an abstraction.
Let’s take a look at another example, and explore another word that invites confusion.
Socialism
Suppose you are arguing that a mechanism of redistribution is necessary in any given society to redress inequality. In an honest debate, your opponent would explore this proposition at face value. However, your opponent might take the dishonest route, and attack the abstract ‘socialism’ instead. Socialism is indeed a word with far more breadth and baggage than ‘mechanism of redistribution’, and invoking this abstraction allows the opponent far more scope for attack.
The problem is, socialism is less specific than ‘mechanism of redistribution’, and liable to a greater number of interpretations. Thus, in such a debate the focus of discussion is muddied.
The danger is therefore that whenever talking about wealth redistribution mechanisms of any kind, if the club of socialism is to be brought out, the individual wanting to sensibly discuss redressing inequality is liable to be clobbered with the full weight of Stalin’s legacy and body count of Mao’s China.
Invoking ‘socialism’ can therefore shut down conversations, smear the opinions of others and leave everyone involved confused.
Criminal
Let’s move away briefly from the ‘isms’ and venture boldly into what we unhelpfully refer to as the right wing.
Here, you can also observe this practice of replacing specifics with abstractions in political pundits across the political divide. Pundits and politicians less sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants will refer to the impoverished individuals making the treacherous journey across the channel as ‘criminals’. This lumps them in with the most despised members of society and steps away from the nuanced reality of their unfortunate circumstances.
Does this mean that the word ‘criminal’ has no value and should be dispensed with whenever it arises?
No, absolutely not. But such words should not be used as the primary label for those who commit venal offences.And it certainly shouldn’t be invoked to conjure hatred towards those in desperate situations whose criminal status is simply attained by fleeing conditions far worse than our own.
Concluding Words:
As explored, reaching for generalities over specifics causes the quality of our debates to tumble and the pursuit of the truth to dim.
While abstractions do have value, when we are discussing specific individuals, actions, or behaviours, specific precise language will do far better allowing us to communicate truthfully. Generalisations and abstractions, in such cases, will often only serve as clubs to beat each other over the head with.
So be mindful with your choice of words. Don’t reach for the racism club or the socialist club to smack down your opponent, when more precise language is available to explore the nuance of their opinions. And if ever you observe someone in your personal life reaching for a generalisation, be sure to refer them back to the specific if you can.
