Nuance in writing and debate is useful to make an argument more convincing and powerful. As with any seemingly useful term, like “entrepreneurial” or “leadership,” the value of the word can decrease the more it is used. This is one of the reasons that “nuance” is now such a buzzword.
A nuanced piece is more than just a counter-argument buried at the end of your argument. To have nuance, one must be cognizant of the counter-arguments throughout the piece. This means actively seeking out voices that differ from yours and incorporating them into the thought process and construction of an argument.
A recent example of this is the recent debate over Fidel Castro’s legacy. Scrolling through your Facebook timeline, you might have noticed a post saying Castro was a complex figure.
A self-identified leftist person would be right in saying Castro fought against imperialism, established a health care system and increased literacy rates, whereas a self-identified rightist would be right in saying that his regime massively curbed civil liberties and ordered the execution of those who stood in its way. That is all true.
Furthermore, it is true that throughout the Cold War, the U.S. government funded and propped up dictatorships and insurrections, such as the contras in Nicaragua, that led to the loss of life — all in the name of fighting communism.
Too often we categorize people as purely evil or purely good. Not only are both classifications overused, but they also erase the contexts in which historical figures like Castro lived.
Had commentators — from the left or the right — effectively engaged with Castro’s legacy, they would not have selectively chosen evidence that condemned or extolled him.
The real problem with many of these posts is that they acknowledge him as complex, then completely ignore anything to the contrary of their point. Merely tacking on a sentence like, “He censored the media,” does not qualify as a real critique. Though it is placed at the end to make the argument “nuanced,” it only operates as a glorified footnote.
It wouldn’t be fair to pin the “death of nuance” on any one political party, person or ideology. Lack of nuance — true nuance — is something this page, University officials, politicians and religious leaders all struggle with.
