Back when I was in grad school, I tried to dissuade my undergraduate students from using the word 鈥渂ias鈥� or from thinking of their sources as 鈥渂iased.鈥�
I鈥檇 been trained by several excellent professors at the University of Victoria to think of bias as an unhelpful term, and I was reminded of this lesson last week when I stumbled across some commentary on the Woody Allen scandal.
It wasn鈥檛 a scholarly or journalistic article. It was just an opinion piece, like this, discussing the blow-back surrounding the Golden Globes鈥� decision to award Woody Allen, the man who stands accused by his adopted daughter of molesting her when she was seven, with a Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award.
The thesis boiled down to this: There are two sides to every story. Allen is both an alleged child molester and a great artist, and it鈥檚 wrong to ignore one facet of the man in favour of the other.
There鈥檚 a problem with this conclusion, and it鈥檚 a problem that鈥檚 often present in the news we watch, the articles we read and the things we say.
It鈥檚 the fallacy of balance.
鈥淏alance鈥� connotes all things that are steady and dependable. The idea of balanced writing (or balanced journalism or balanced reasoning) relies on the metaphor of the scale. If there are two sides to every story, the metaphor suggests, then a balanced review will put equal weight on both sides. To do otherwise would be unfair.
This model is also attractive to us partly because of our linear understanding of left-right politics.
This metaphor, however, encourages us to presuppose that there鈥檚 content of equal value on each side. This is a problem. For example, when praising Allen as a filmmaker, I think it鈥檚 wrong to deny or obscure the fact that he鈥檚 also accused of being a child molester. I think we have a moral duty to acknowledge that context.
On the other hand, I think it鈥檚 valid for someone to choose not to support or condone Allen by watching his films, regardless of how funny they are. I think it鈥檚 valid for someone to answer the question of 鈥淚s Woody Allen a great filmmaker?鈥� with 鈥淚 don鈥檛 care, because he allegedly abused his child.鈥�
This doesn鈥檛 make that person鈥檚 opinions 鈥渦nbalanced;鈥� it means instead that they find one side of the argument more important.
In this case, moral factors trump esthetic ones; indeed, I think it鈥檚 appalling to argue that the moral and the esthetic have equal value. Child abuse is a bigger deal than Annie Hall. Yet the metaphor of 鈥渂alanced鈥� reasoning insists quite powerfully that in order to be fair, you need to accept both sides as valid; to come down on one side or the other is to be extreme or unbalanced or biased.
This two-sides-to-every-story model infiltrates so much of our writing and reasoning. It鈥檚 especially insidious because it casts the reader in the role of moderator at all times. It suggests that there鈥檚 a way of looking at a situation that is divorced from our subject position, that it鈥檚 possible to be free from 鈥渂ias.鈥�
This is dangerous. It鈥檚 possible to be fair, but it鈥檚 never possible to be neutral 鈥� and the only way to be fair is to acknowledge in what ways you and the world around you are not neutral. If you鈥檙e a man and you don鈥檛 understand how male privilege affects you, or how systemic sexism negatively impacts women, then you鈥檙e obscuring the problem rather than solving it.
Insisting that you鈥檙e neutral harms the people you鈥檙e intending to help.
When Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, pundits anxiously wondered if her identity as a Hispanic woman would affect her. She responded by acknowledging that, yes, her experiences as a Hispanic woman would affect her decisions 鈥� but no more so than her predecessor鈥檚 experiences as a white man affected his. This was something no one had thought to worry about.
Everyone鈥檚 鈥渂iased,鈥� and since that鈥檚 not a useful observation for anyone over the age of 16, let鈥檚 toss it.
Let鈥檚 also toss the idea that it鈥檚 better to be a moderator than an opinion-haver, and that both sides of an argument are equally valid. Sometimes they鈥檙e not, and it鈥檚 not unjust or extreme to say so.
