You Keep Using That Word…

I don’t think it means what you think it means

The word nuance does have a definition. Nuance is not a synonym for complicated. It is not a synonym for uncomfortable. It is not a synonym for confusing. Given the overuse of the word post-October 7th one would think it could mean any of the above. 

The definition of nuanced in the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary (I encourage everyone to use older dictionaries instead of modern or online dictionaries) reads:

 “Nu`ance" (?), n. [F.] A shade of difference; a delicate gradation.” 

The difference between grape tomatoes and cherry tomatoes is nuanced. The difference between a boyfriend and a lover may be nuanced. One could legitimately argue the difference between Lutherans and Presbyterians is nuanced. 

There is nothing about the conflict between Hamas and Israel that is morally nuanced. This applies to whatever side you land on. Either Israel has a right to exist or it doesn’t. Either killing babies is wrong or it isn’t. Hiding behind civilians is either abhorrent or acceptable. 

There are questions and debates surrounding Israel that are perhaps complicated or require a level of expertise to unpack but none of it is nuanced. Take for example the question of who has a right to the land of Israel. Many are calling this question nuanced. It is not. What is true is that people have different standards by which they determine land ownership. If two people come to a different conclusion as to who has an indigenous right to Israel that doesn’t mean the situation is nuanced it means they are assessing with different standards. One standard might be “whoever can show proof of having lived in an area first has a right to the land.” Maybe one only wants to go as far back as the 20th century. Maybe another person believes land never ‘belongs’ to anyone and perhaps there is another camp that believes land simply belongs to whoever can take it. Whatever your standard, if it is coherent, it won’t be nuanced. A standard generally means a set of requirements that need to be met to make some kind of claim. Whether or not something meets a standard is less often nuanced. And if it is nuanced this is likely due to an incoherent or incomplete standard.

Not to say there is nothing about Israel that is nuanced. Questions about who makes aliyah can be nuanced. Where the exact borders of Israel shall fall is a historical debate with some nuance. Though typically it is defining the standard that can be clouded with nuance. Even within the issues previously listed, once you have a standard, enforcing them is typically not nuanced. The debates around October 7th don’t revolve around who gets citizenship to Israel or where the borders are. Hamas and many of their civilian supporters want there to be no Israel at all. This isn’t a question of who gets to participate in the lone democracy in the Middle East but rather whether it should exist at all.

Folks use the word “nuance” as a shield against commitment or following an idea to its logical conclusion. The nuance label is a way to avoid the consequences of a bad idea or the inconvenient truths of a good idea. Since October 7th many have written about the cowardice of playing both sides-ism. Not only do people use nuance as a shield they also claim those who do not are somehow in the wrong. This doesn’t apply just to Israel but to nearly every controversial topic out there.

The abortion debate illustrates this. Those who are pro-life at every stage of the pregnancy without a rape exception are called extremists. Those who are pro-choice up to the point of birth (and potentially after birth) are also called extremists. Neither group is extreme, they are the only ones brave enough to follow the logic of their philosophy to the end conclusion. The question when it comes to abortion is “Is human life intrinsically invaluable?” If the answer is yes we should protect life at every stage, if the answer is no then abortion should be on the table at any point. It’s uncomfortable for an honest pro-lifer to tell a raped woman she must carry the baby. It’s uncomfortable for an honest pro-choicer to tell a crowd that an unborn baby can be killed five minutes before it is born. Yet those who are willing to make either argument are the only honest ones in the debate. Those who want to approach abortion with some kind of middle-of-the-road solution are not using a consistent standard. What we need in regard to Israel is an honest debate, not a nuanced one.

Stop putting a ‘nuance bandaid’ on everything that makes you uncomfortable. If beheading babies is wrong then reflect on what sort of philosophy would lead someone to believe this behavior is justified. We want to see the good in people, we want to be tolerant of different cultures but perhaps reflection will lead us to conclude that not all cultures are equal or moral. That might be an uncomfortable truth for you. Lean into it. You will become better for it and that’s a promise.

What should make us most uncomfortable is lies. What should make us most uncomfortable is moral depravity. We should aim to be truth extremists, not the guy who gets along with everyone. If you get along with everyone the truth is you are the bad guy, not the good guy. As author Spencer Johnson said, “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.”