About three weeks ago, I caught up with a good friend whom I’d gone several months without seeing. While we were catching up and talking about topics ranging from our beloved Dallas Cowboys to the impact we believe social media has on the general mood of our country (you know, typical stuff), he said something that stayed on my mind well after the conversation ended. Very innocently, and in passing, he referred to himself as a ‘contrarian,’ taking a sense of pride in the title. I elected not to stop him to elaborate; I’ve known him for years, very intimately, and didn’t need clarification. I knew this about him.
He made this declaration while arguing that Black Lives Matter is a “hypocritical” movement in which a black life is only valued if taken by a white person. His counterargument, as old as the movement itself, was that “all lives matter”—a statement missing the bullseye so wildly that it’s hardly a discussion worth entertaining. However, the conversation shifted toward why public outcry is “much louder,” from his perspective, when a black man is shot by a cop for something as innocent as selling CDs versus when a black man is killed by another black man within inner cities across the country. Essentially, he was engaging in the “whataboutism” we often see or hear in today’s political climate. While his stance (which completely neglected far more complicated issues about systemic racism and grouping that require an entirely different discussion) was not entirely surprising to me, it made me consider the profound negative impact that contrarians tend to impose on those who are legitimate victims of unconscious biases or blatant hatred.
For the sake of relevant example: the progress that movements like Black Lives Matter strive to make is so often hijacked and stunted by the perceived threat they introduce. The “well, what about (insert rarer occurrence)” approach is used to argue or delegitimize—say, Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem, or a cop being killed in Dallas at a BLM rally. And this approach avoids two things: reflection and progress. The contrarian approach leaves both “sides” of a problem without solutions.
Progress that movements like Black Lives Matter strive to make is so often hijacked and stunted by the perceived threat they introduce. The “well, what about (insert rarer occurrence)” approach is used to argue or delegitimize. Share on XAs I explored this idea, I questioned why individuals elect to engage in whataboutism versus advocacy, or basic compassion. For some, it appears to be a defense of their intelligence – by consistently dodging and deflecting simple ideas such as peaceful protest aimed at bettering the position people of color in our society. I know this to be a symptom of fear; fear of being uninformed about a topic, therefore feeling stupid, or fear of not being the focus of public discord. Either way, it’s a real feeling that people wrongly act on by diminishing other groups’ experiences for the sake of their own comfort; I know this because I’ve been in this position.
This idea that someone can teach you something is threatening in a sense. It leaves one vulnerable. And what’s the easiest way to protect, or even hide vulnerability but fight, deflect, react? Again, it is easy for me to detect this particular type of behavior, as I myself am guilty of it. And sometimes, playing contrarian (especially with a topic you’re uninformed about) can help you understand the topic itself in a much more nuanced way. However, utilizing contrarianism to absolve oneself from personal reflection or understanding a worldview outside of your own only stymies the ability for people across the board to look at each other at eye level.
Utilizing contrarianism to absolve oneself from personal reflection or understanding a worldview outside of your own only stymies the ability for people across the board to look at each other at eye level. Share on XContext is a cornerstone. The ability to look at issues we face, particularly challenges around diversity and inclusion, as individual situations—and not the generalities we create in our own minds—allows everyone involved in the unique experience to grow as humans. Whataboutism is lazy and, quite frankly, synonymous with contrarianism. Merriam-Webster sums it up by stating, “Whataboutism is essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse.” It simply muddies already murky waters to the point where the inherent values of any conversation, particularly topics of inclusion and race are lost entirely; this proves to be the worse outcome. Playing a role in forcing an individual “two steps back” after they’ve made the proverbial one step forward does nothing but bandage a gaping wound, effectively halting progress toward diversity, equity and inclusion in society. It silences a voice.
The ability to look at issues we face, particularly challenges around diversity and inclusion, as individual situations—and not the generalities we create in our own minds—allows everyone involved in the unique experience to grow. Share on XI have yet to understand how to successfully overcome whataboutism. I do know, however, as a person who has regretfully taken this approach in the past on certain topics, that finding the antidote to this impulse will lead to compassion and advocacy for those who deserve more.
