For a sport like college basketball, which appears to be slowly dying, this year’s March Madness has been mostly riveting. Congratulations to the Duke Blue Devils for advancing to the men’s Final Four, and the South Carolina Gamecocks for advancing to the women’s Final Four.
Why We Need Nuance
One of my friends and fellow staff members at church once said that if I had a super power I would be “Nuance Man.” I laughed out loud when his wife first told me that; then he copped to it later.
He’s probably not wrong. I used to be accused of being a contrarian. And as I’ve considered that label through the years, I would concede that it has some validity. I do find that when conventional wisdom is running almost entirely in one direction, I instinctively wonder, “Are we all missing something here? Maybe there’s another angle here to be considered.”
I don’t consider this the problematic kind of contrarianism, the kind that always disagrees just to disagree as matter of feigned intellectual virtue. I do, however, find that certain social and intellectual patterns tend to reduce every issue to a binary choice, typically associated with the worst extremes of the Democratic and Republican parties. Mind you, I’m not advocating for the supposed “moderate stance.” Being moderate isn’t inherently virtuous either, even if moderation can certainly be a fruit of the spirit.
I suppose my conviction boils down to this: in every human conflict or debate, there’s almost always more than one side to an issue, and usually several! Think of an interpersonal spat between two friends of yours. They come to you to relay their side of the matter. Even if they’re especially virtuous people, the heat of the moment and their own biases tend to obscure at least some detail of the dispute that would render their account slightly less than complete. Think of it this way: there’s at least a third perspective. There’s this friend’s, then that friend’s, then there’s GOD’S perspective! He sees the full scope of rights and wrongs implicated in both people’s words, actions, thoughts, and attitudes.
Of course, we finite beings can only approximate God’s perspective, so then it’s easy to see that a third or fourth perspective might emerge in which one sees one party or the other as the party who is most offended.
A prudent, charitable contrarianism—the kind I aspire to—would be able to reject the simplistic efforts of people to say, hastily, “this must be this way or that way.” Nuance, I believe, is essential in this evaluation.
Nuance is required in view of our human tendency and desire to simplify the complex. Certainly there’s a place for trying to strip things down to their fundamental premises and characteristics. We call that an overview or summary, and thank God for wise summarizers! We do it each day. Imagine if we tried to recount every human interaction, discussion, or debate verbatim in every subsequent conversation from the original point of encounter. We’d spend all day talking and not achieving anything. However, you can see where our lack of nuance in recounting some things can create greater confusion and enhance the possibility of unfair assumptions arising. Nuance matters when we deal with subjects and situations that are inherently complex.
Nuance is also important in the arena of word choice. Yes, I’m sure we word-mavens drive others crazy sometimes with our inability to accept the basic terms offered by others. Usually, these discussions are punctuated by words like, “actually” and phrases like, “Well, I’d put it a little differently.” But all we need to do is consider how word choice has a way of tipping the scales of a debate in one direction or another.
I’ve thought for years how mainstream journalists will characterize a Democratic-based proposal as “bold,” but a Republican-based proposal as “controversial.” Similarly, certain firsts associated with the former are dubbed “historic,” while firsts associated with the latter are “unprecedented.” Strictly speaking, these two pairs of adjectives don’t mean the same thing, but to the average person, they are often used interchangeably. Yet it’s clear that in the byline of a story or headline under the ever-ubiquitous “Breaking News” banner, one term in each pair tends to be more pejorative.
The more you discuss political matters, social-moral issues, and theology-church related topics, the more apparent it becomes that nuance is indispensable to thoughtful dialogue. Unbelievers can easily get the wrong idea about who you are and where you stand. Believers, likewise, can pigeon-hole you quite quickly if you aren’t prepared to bring clarity to a discussion fraught with potential confusion.
While contrarianism and nuance aren’t identical concepts, I see them as complementary notions—one a disposition, and the other an intellectual tool—that have the capacity, when deployed humbly and honestly, to aid our thought, judgments, and relationships.
The Judge Jackson Hearing
When I was a junior and senior in high school, I had narrowed down my prospective career choices to three: politician, preacher, and attorney. People often laugh when I share this. Let’s face it: it sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. Yet it’s true. At that juncture in my education, I could most easily see myself going down one of those three vocational paths. I suppose “preacher” was third, with a combination of “attorney-turned-politician” being first. Looking back, I realize how cliché that probably sounds.
History, the Law, and public persuasion seem to be fundamentals to a profession in the law. My interest in these three hasn’t abated. If anything, it has been enhanced by what I increasingly see as the degradation of all three in public education and public discourse, including politics. I suppose this explains my fascination with hearings for those who have been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
All told, these hearings typically last for around a week, and they run for the better part of a full workday. As many observers have noted, they have increasingly become acrimonious, divisive, predictable, and often unhelpful. Let me comment on the unhelpful part.
Some of this stems from what has come to be called “the Ginsberg Standard.” When Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993, having been nominated by President Clinton, she stated the following:
You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
This standard has been reiterated and deployed by nearly every nominated judge ever since. What’s interesting is that major political leaders of both parties have supported this stance on multiple occasions. However, when Judiciary Committee members interview a nominee by a president of the opposite party, they’re constantly exasperated when their questions don’t yield “forecasts, hints, or previews.”
Many jurists and legal commentators have increasingly wondered if this standard has now made confirmations mostly unhelpful and irrelevant. What’s more, when senators of both parties announce prior to the hearings themselves that they plan to support or not support the nominee, it makes the average guy wonder, “Then why have the hearing?”
Now we have seen instances where senators did seem to make up their minds over the course of the public hearing process, though those instances are precious few (and increasingly so). So the argument remains, “Why keep up the charade of weeks of build-up and then a week of public hearings if everyone already knows how they will vote?”
If for no other reason, I think the public deserves an opportunity to hear from these judges. In a judicial context where Supreme Court nominees are closer to 50 years of age, this means that their decisions will have a bearing on our lives for two or three decades. And this is only considering the immediate impact of their rulings, not how those rulings will impact American society long after these justices leave the bench.
I suspect I’m one of the few Americans who watch the entire coverage of the hearings. Typically, I don’t get around to watching them all until the following week. (No, I don’t burn a week of vacation time so I can watch C-Span for 9 hours a day.) In the more disputed hearings, I try to watch in real-time. But even if I don’t have a vote on the nominee, I have two senators from my state who do. I want Senator Hawley, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, to know if I think his questions are legitimate or asinine. I want Senator Blunt to know if I think the judge is qualified.
While this may seem like a token form of civic engagement, I think it is important for at least three reasons.
First, it conveys that voters care about the legal system and the courts. We understand how crucial it is that these institutions are perceived as (and are, in fact) legitimate.
Second, it conveys that citizens increasingly cannot rely on most news networks to give a fair and accurate assessment of how a judicial nominee was actually treated. We must watch for ourselves, compare with what we’ve seen before, and develop an opinion.
Third, SCOTUS has taken on an increasingly enlarged role in the life of ordinary Americans. Since we have a Congress that often fails to do its job legislatively, delegating more and more authority to the federal bureaucracy, voters need to know who these nine elusive figures are who hold so much sway over our lives. We need to be able to pray for their integrity, pray about pending rulings, and seek God’s wisdom on how we might be able to protect ourselves, neighbors, and institutions from unjust rulings.
Judge Jackson seems like a very thoughtful, measured, and intelligent person. I have no reason to disbelieve the good character references she received from persons across the aisle. Still, we have every reason to be concerned and to pray whenever we have judges who cannot answer such questions as, “What is a woman?” It’s not a culture-wars question. It’s a legitimate question that has a profound bearing on how we understand reality and the interpretation of the law.
I’d encourage readers to take their time and gradually watch some of the recent hearings for themselves. You’ll be enlightened about the process, but you’ll also be reminded of why you should be concerned about how these hearings are conducted. You’ll hear sound, legitimate, common questions that judges should be asked, and you’ll hear some things quite to the contrary. You’ll hear questions answered helpfully and ones answered poorly. Overall, you’ll become familiar with the name and face of a woman who will probably impact your life at some point, for better or worse. Add this to your prayer list!
Currently Reading:
Catch-up Week