As a student of law, when I listen to the debates around me or when I have them with my friends, family and even faculty, I recently began noticing a trend of debating on any topic with increasing intensity of rhetorical whataboutery. To a layman, a rhetorical argument in the form of whataboutery would be irritating but to a student of law, it is a complete disappointment, and the reason is quite obvious as—for those of us who study the law, practice it and preach it—our livelihood depends on debating skills which are far from rhetoric. Therefore when I could not see an out of this situation, I decided to clear some of the rhetoric once and for all in this article.
This rhetoric has been the new normal but you really begin to wonder and get desperate in these circumstances that have been created around you, as to what will happen to the actual problem at hand because as history tells us, rhetoric never is the answer to any question. Then why do we engage in it?
I don’t have an answer to that. It is menial and irrelevant. Or maybe, I guess, it is self evident. You would find rhetoric in the absence of real and well-sourced, well-established answers and arguments. To a rational person, this is a bummer, and once I lost my nerves when a faculty member of my university asked another a question which had every hint of rhetoric in it and the question, as it always does, began with “where were you when…?” and “what about…?” The rhetorical questions around us are mostly related to this very sentence and many reading this, can actually relate to this. But what do you make of a member of faculty of law asking this question?
I leave the answer to this dilemma to your wisdom in the belief that you won’t counter me with a rhetorical question and realise where and what is wrong with the ‘saturated opinions’.
Let’s begin by discussing the chronology of things that I wish to address. Firstly, I shall tell you about a phenomenon which I call the theory of ‘saturated opinions’ that may explain the need for rhetoric instead of well-framed arguments. This would be the first part of this series.
Secondly, I shall address the actual rhetorical questions and the whataboutery, taking these questions as examples which you can treat as a template, or if you were or are a math student in your high school, treat these as solved examples before the exercises begin. I will solve the examples and you, the reader, will have to do the exercises.
The Theory Of Saturated Opinions
The basic premise of my theory of saturated opinions is chemistry. I shall take you back to 9th standard chemistry where you must have studied about solutes, solvents and solutions, as well as saturated and unsaturated solutions. It is pretty easy even if you have forgotten all about it: I am going to explain this in the simplest of languages. After all, I would not want you to be like a certain former Chief Justice of India who forgot about the theories of Independence of judiciary, or of separation of power, or some cases which he presided over (cough: electoral bonds case). Even if I am not a good student or a teacher, I will help you revise, which will help you understand my theory of saturated opinions.
So, a chapter in chemistry contained lessons on solutes and solutions. You had a ‘solute’ which was a product like salt or sugar, which you were supposed to mix with water or any similar liquid, which is referred to as a ‘solvent’. You were supposed to mix them in a particular proportion to obtain a resultant product, which would be known as the ‘solution’.
Now, the principles of chemistry tell us that a solvent can dissolve only some of the solute, both mixed in fixed proportions after which the solution just stops dissolving more solute and becomes saturated. In other words, the liquid cannot dissolve more of salt or sugar in that amount of water or other solvents. This is when the solution is said to have become saturated.
Now try guessing what I mean by ‘Saturated Opinions’.
The information which a person receives is the solute; the brain of the person is the solvent; and the resultant opinion, processed by the combination of information and the brain, or the solute and the solvent, is the solution. Thus, you can process only so much information in your brain so as to form an opinion. However, there is a trick in chemistry, a rather simple and effective one, which enables you to dissolve more solute into the solvent, and thus make the solution more concentrated by increasing its saturation point. This is done by the simple act of heating the solvent.
So can you similarly increase the capacity of the brain?
In one word, the answer is a ‘YES’. There are multiple ways to do that. If one wishes to process more information, one has to warm up their brain and dissolve more and more of the solute. And with this, we have reached the G-spot of the problem (Now don’t get grossed out; it’s just a body part). Many believe it is there, many don’t; and even among those who believe the G-spot is real, only a few are able to stimulate it. The same is the case with our solute, the information we consume. The question is: whether you wish to arouse your brain’s G-spot. If you stimulate it, the result would be orgasmic; if you don’t know how to stimulate it, you would lose out. Much less, if you don’t believe it is there, you will engage in the rhetoric of whataboutery.
The problem with the people engaging in a debate full of rhetoric is their unwillingness to read, research and delve deep into the depths of the brain and the topic. ‘Intellectual’ as a word has been reduced to an abuse, and when you ask them to check the information for its correctness, rhetoric begins. You will frequently be faced with accusations and shamed because of your beliefs, your associations, and because you do not agree with the other person. In older times, this was not the case. If two people did differ ideologically, religiously, scientifically or politically, the course was to debate it out, sort the differences and bridge the gap for a better nation; and in case the differences still persisted, they would depart from the topic without a sick feeling of being humiliated, shamed or abused. The two adversaries would withdraw respectfully, and that made all the difference.
Opinions now, however, have become saturated. That is, there is no debate, no considerations, and no regard for the other person’s opinions. The mathematical equation of adding the voices which make India a diverse country is absent. Opinions of the people can no longer be moulded, altered, or influenced by logic, scientific analysis, legal arguments and wisdom. People are now set in their own ways and refuse to let anyone else show them the other side.
Thus, to ask people to read more would be seen as a challenge rather than a suggestion. The ignorant attitude would be blissfully rewarded with people of similar nature, alienating the opposition or the ones with a different opinion. This is destructive, and only helps boost political propaganda, which in this decade at least has been quite a distinguished feature and coupled with social media, takes an even more destructive form.
That was the theory of saturated opinions for you. In the next part, I will address the examples and answers to whataboutery and rhetoric.