More precision in discourse (and my comments)

By Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh

Jordan Times
August 28, 2009

Precision is not one of our society’s virtues. Most of the time, when receiving or conveying information, we generalise, stretch, dramatise, over or underemphasise, tell anecdotes that apply to a few implying that they apply to all, select at random, fragment, omit at will, etc. Perhaps this is human nature. Many societies, however, especially the more developed, have learned to be less haphazard or vague, and more orderly and precise, in both their words and acts.

Thinking reflects behaviour (and vice versa). This is why, to me, our discourse is not much different from our traffic situation. The chaos one sees on the roads, created by motorists and pedestrians alike, is reflected in our thinking and expression. This is not, obviously, innate, but an outcome of our modern-day cultural upbringing, education, practices and conduct.

At times, such imprecision is harmless, even understandable. When one is sitting with friends or family members in the comfort of one’s own living room chatting — and when people chat, they address issues of all sorts, from poverty, to food, to the Arab-Israeli conflict — one, with exceptions, of course, is not 100 per cent accurate in what one says. People just chat. At times, they are deliberately silly, provocative and distorting facts.

Generally, however, imprecision can be quite harmful, especially when people express their opinions on sensitive issues. Such imprecision is abundantly seen in our talk shows (hosts, main guests and phone-in participants), newspaper editorials and articles, lectures, books, TV series, movies and all sorts of discussions that take place in formal and informal situations.

Examples about our discourse on politics and international relations are plentiful. In the opinion of some among us, the entire world is conspiring against us. So many dark, evil forces in the world are out there to get us. Day and night, they are scheming to corrupt our youth, lay traps for us at every corner, offend our morality, destroy our religion, eliminate our cuisine, etc. These forces at work include not only occupiers and imperialists (who, through their reckless actions and interventions, enforce such thinking), but also foreign writers, journalists, musicians, singers, dancers, filmmakers, actors, athletes. The same applies to “foreign” food chains, clothes outlets, hotels, tourist attractions.

One is not denying that there is competition in the world, and that countries, big or small, put their interests above all other, and therefore think, plan, scheme and conspire to achieve their goals. There is a lot of cooperation and collaboration in our world, but there is also a lot of competition and conflict.

What does one expect?

Saying this, however, is something, and seeing ourselves constantly as vulnerable, delicate, sensitive, innocent and helpless victims is another thing. The latter could be a manifestation of apathy and paranoia at their worst.

Take also the matter of poverty as an example: There is poverty in our society; those who are poor are significant in number; the country is doing something to alleviate poverty; what it does is serious, though not totally sufficient. These are facts.

But there is also a lot of distortion. Until now, we do not have accurate statistics (the same applies to unemployment) regarding the matter. Furthermore, because of the lack of a clear-cut definition of poverty, it is often hard to tell who is poor and who is not in our society.

This, ultimately, is fine. We can live with a degree of ambiguity. The institutions concerned with studying, determining and dealing with poverty in our society will some day be more efficient and transparent, and provide us with more accurate and precise figures.

What is not fine, however, is the fact that because we take the issue of poverty so seriously, because many are concerned about the matter, from the highest levels of government and NGOs down, and because we talk about poverty so much, almost everybody in our society started seeing him/herself as poor. The poor and the not so poor started to continually complain and nag.

You listen to our talk shows, read our articles, hear our officials, see our movies and TV series, and you get the impression that we are all starving. People complain they cannot afford meat, yet buy tonnes of it. The prices are too high, life is too harsh, is another complaint.

Not long ago, when asked how they were doing, the poor, the not so poor and the wealthy would reply: “alhamdu-lillah” (thank God).

What happened to this dignified feeling? What happened to gratitude and thankfulness? When asked this question, most people explode, complaining and nagging.

The point is that many find a lot of convenience, coziness and comfort in seeing themselves as victims of all kinds of world conspiracies or as poor. This is a fad and a malady.

Clearly, this matter needs to be addressed effectively. One of the best ways of doing it is bombarding — I cannot think of a better word — people with facts, figures, statistics and apt analyses.

Precision is a virtue; imprecision is a vice. Our society needs to invest more in the former, and battle the latter.

Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh is the dean of the Faculty of Arts at Jordan University.


Mark says:

Regardless of how whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr. Majdoubeh's diagnosis or analysis — and I happen to believe that he makes a lot of sense talking about his part of the world — he may be overly optimistic about the efficacy of his prescription for solving the problem he describes, or at least improving the situation: "bombarding... people with facts, figures, statistics and apt analyses." His view may reflect that he is an academic — though there's nothing wrong with that, to paraphrase that well-known philosopher Seinfeld.

He may find that at least some of his fellow Jordanians and fellow Arabs will respond with such comebacks as: "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics" and "You are entitled to your own set of opinions; you are not entitled to your own set of facts."

As for analyses... all you have to do is read through the range of articles in this blog to see that bombarding people with "apt analyses" is not necessarily going to get people to be more precise, or they may get more precise in directions other than you want, or they may simply disagree with your analyses... and call you names to boot.

But that's just my cynical read on reality. On the other hand, Mr. Majdoubeh does make some important points about precision and knowledge and especially conspiracy theories — and maybe he'll find some useful things in this blog?