Rescuing Whataboutism

Dont you hate it when the next person responds to you with, “What about the other thing?”. Whataboutism has a bad rep. It is seen as a way to avoid answers or deflect attention, employed by dishonest people, most often a last resort when you can’t prove your point. But is it really? What motivates a person to do it? Is it ever helpful in a debate? What differentiates a good whataboutism from a bad one? What is the reason for the bad rep of Whataboutism?

Whataboutism

Formally, whataboutism is the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. It is often pejorative.

Motivations and Usefulness

Debates are often heated, people trying to score points aggressively. Often, it involves focusing on a single topic. Sometimes, this focus can become too focused, and we move into the territory where we miss the forest for the trees. We might become so focused on a topic that we ignore similar occurrences elsewhere. E.g. Max Weber, in his work “Protestant ethics and capitalism,” argues that it is the Christian Protestant ethics of Saint Calvin that led to capitalism and industrialization in Western Europe. If this idea were to be put forward now, we might ask, “What about capitalism in Japan or Russia or China? Is Shintoism or Stalinism or Maoism responsible for the growth of capitalism in these societies?” This would broaden the context and allow for rectification of serious problems in Weber’s theories. It might bring forth reasons like slavery, colonialism, or opium trade as equally responsible for capitalism in Western Europe.

Whataboutism here is motivated by the extreme constriction of context. It acts as a liberator, allows the scope to be widened, and thus helps build a more general theory.

At other times, whataboutism draws attention to more important topics. E.g. In a discussion on the best water parks in India, attention can be drawn to the scarcity of potable water in some pockets. Here, it shifts the focus from one topic to another.

Sometimes, whataboutism is employed as a tool for meta-analysis. Why are we concerned with this topic in particular? Is it because of our biases? Is it motivated by some latent motivations or ideologies? Basically, what are your motivations in picking that topic in particular to the exclusion of similar equally salient topics? E.g. In the recent past, an event by the name “Dismantling Global Hindutva” was organised in the USA. Hindu groups opposed it by saying it targets Hindusim. Some people noticed the lack of a similar “Dismantling global Islamism” or “Dismantling global catholicism.” These were dismissed as whatabotisms. But it raises salient questions. Hindutva is certainly less “global” than Islamism or Catholicism. It has caused no terrorist attacks, unlike Islamism or Catholicism. People organising the event are mostly Western-liberal or Muslim scholars. Is it really harmony in India that motivates them, or is it Western imperialism, vestiges of colonialism, and Islamism? Is it because Hindutva is an easy target with no risks such as retaliatory extremism or the all imposing presence of global papacy? Is it an attempt to impose Western understanding, once again, on Indians in general and Hindus in particular?

The whataboutism broadens the context and enables a meta-analysis of why the topic was chosen to exclusion of others. It allows us to analyse the analysers. It is used as a tool to wrestle back the narrative from a group by questioning their legitimacy and motivations. This is close to the postmodernist thoughts.

Good vs Bad whatabotisms

A good whataboutism raises equally or more important topics related to the current one. It enriches the context of the topic at hand and allows for a wider discussion. It acts as an attention shifter. Sometimes, it broadens the context so that we can take a bird’s eye view of the topic. At other times, it changes the focus from a less to a more important topic. Finally, it allows for a meta-analysis, a study of biases and motivations of the analysers. Often, it does all or many of these things at the same time.

Why the bad rep

It seems whataboutism is not as bad as we think it is. It might even be an effective tool. How then can we understand the pejorative usage of the term?

Firstly, it is often used unskillfully. The user might raise less important points or false alternatives. E.g. In a policy discussion on sports in school education, the importance of music education might be raised. Music and sports in schools are not exclusive of each other.

Secondly, the functions performed by whataboutism are a shifting of focus. Research topics in humanities are often determined by vested interests. Often, funding for a project determines its success and visibility. Also, researchers are personally and creatively invested in a topic or perspective due to cultural or ideological reasons. Whataboutism questions the motivations and biases, thus questioning the very legitimacy of the topic and the scholars. Such questions are deligitimised by dismissing them as whataboutisms.

Conclusion

Whataboutism is a useful tool in discussions if used skillfully. It acts as a liberator of focus and a calibrator of topics. I am obviously biased in defending whataboutisms, but I had to start somewhere. Why did I choose to defend whataboutism? What about other topics equally or more important than whataboutism? What are my motivations in raising this topic in particular?