What if the retribution for the crime of theft were to be the same as for the more severe crimes, like murder?
Hold on to that thought; we’ll walk right back to it. When someone is charged with murder across the globe, many countries often walk through the doors of capital punishment or life imprisonment. While the crime is one, the nuanced (we’ll trace back to what nuance is) factors of whether the murder was passionate, premeditated, or manslaughter play a role in deciding the extent of retribution. The circumstances surrounding the crime lead to the final judgement of retribution, leaving a sense of moral justice with empathy despite the consistencies amongst cases. The years of imprisonment in certain countries also factor in the same nuance.
Now, tracing right back, what if the crime of theft had the same penalty as murder, leaving both crimes punished equally? The principle of proportionality would disappear — the intensity of the punishment wouldn’t match the weight of the crime, hence ignoring the “nuance” within.
Walk right with me into what nuance is. Nuance is a ‘shade’ or detail that complements the discussion. It is the difference between saying ‘ruby’ or ‘scarlet’ instead of ‘red’. It is the contrast between absolutist or polarised ideas. Absolutism is easier, quicker, and easier to categorise in this ever-paced world. Nuance is a depth. It is justice. It is the privilege of rating a restaurant anywhere around 1 to 10 rather than saying it was perfect or horrible. It is the privilege of saying you’re doing okay instead of euphoric or that you’re upset instead of depressed. Nuances are part of everyday descriptions, and once you grasp their existence, you almost expect them to be basic in a world that is difficult to categorise as black or white. Nevertheless, nuance has been dying. Tragically. Rapidly.
Headlines sell you absolutism. Social media sells you absolutism. In fact, capitalism sells absolutism to you. It’s the age-old argument: if everything can be categorised into absolute boxes, if subtle differences can be avoided, and if there is no need to entertain or encourage subtle shades of differences, it would be easier to identify everything in the world as this or that. This easy categorisation allows for the economies of scale that are so highly demanded in this world through the lens of average costs. Think about it: it’s easier to classify customer groups as either price sensitive or value driven. Avoiding nuance does generate something close to economies of scale. When a business stops concerning itself with the individual stories or the emotional textures behind its decisions, it can standardise. It can mass-produce both products and narratives without stopping to ask, “But what does this mean to different people?”
That is efficiency in its cold, cost-cutting and consistent form. And yet, the gain in productivity is cut down with the loss of intimacy and connection. Because the less you entertain nuance, the less you have to grapple with the messy realities of human diversity, and the easier it is to forget why you began catering to those humans in the first place.
Human individualism is messy. Polarisation and absolutism argue that the quicker you stop listening to and entertaining the subtlest of differences, the easier it becomes to target and deliver. Think of the media. Traditional media avoids nuance and encourages polarisation because we live in an era of attention deficiency, where time is more valuable than ever. Time is everything. And to read a great analysis in a newspaper or even to read an e-paper is a splurge. News outlets, when they encourage partisanship, attract readership and earn reactions. Consider Al-Jazeera, which is criticised by governments and media outlets for allegedly supporting Qatari interests and Islamist narratives over a neutral global stance. But what’s in it for them? They benefit from readership, loyalty, and perhaps the creation of an echo chamber that audiences around the world eagerly immerse themselves in. Consider the backlash the BBC and Western media platforms face for catering to a more Western audience rather than delivering neutrality in the face of Middle Eastern conflicts.
The fragmentation of news media can be deadly for all of us, especially those of us who save ourselves time and consume short-form content on social media. News platforms have utilised social media as an alternative way to approach the attention-deficient audience. Here’s the catch: can the era of short-form content further drown us in absolutist framing and eradicate nuance at a faster rate?
Definitely, that is an argument you would frame on your own. Short-form content allows us to quickly explore the surface, whereas depth can feel overwhelming. Anything longer than a minute makes our shoulders shudder. How many minutes can one spend on content that aims to address greater depth and detail, and even has a part two in the comments that addresses the issue further? The idea of a part two in an Instagram reel often sparks frustration — audiences wonder why such rich ideas couldn’t fit into a single minute. Outrage content fuels the viewership of social media to avoid such frustration and capture the attention of those who are otherwise frustrated and have limited time to spend. While hooks were a traditional form of viewership, these hooks have now been polished to cater to a polarised group through either biased reporting or sparking outrage among them.
The readers consume the tips, ignore the depths, react immediately, and feel a sense of fulfilment. The empty consumption of media leaves them feeling satiated with the idea that they did consume a chunk, but only a few understand that minutes of awareness would never equate to understanding.
Does this make your shoulders shudder? It should. Don’t let me tell you that; feel it in your own skin as you scroll through the absolutism and polarisation. Feel it in the uncertainty of depth. If nuance is dying, so are we. The human race is so diversified. Across races, cultures, characteristics and traits. How can media and businesses and the greater scheme of things overlook such diversities and categorise them into boxes A, B and C? How much do we know about the diversities packed in the other boxes of A and C? How much do we know of the fragmentation in our own box of B and are we really a community if we impose the generalised traits of the box upon the community members instead of recognising and acknowledging the similarities and dissimilarities between each of us?
It makes me uncertain in my own body. How would I feel if someone told me that red was my favourite colour, not scarlet? How does it make me feel when I’m categorised as price sensitive rather than value for money? Why are certain values attributed to liberalism and certain ones to conservatism? And why does the middle neutral ground or an inclination towards one without condemning the other seem to be a coward’s play?
Can our values really be packed into slogans and chants?
Are we really boxes of dichotomy?
Are we seeing the world through the lenses of black and white again? Do we want to?