On the Use of Absolutes, Part 2: In Non-Narrative Nonfiction
Care must also be taken with absolutes in non-narrative nonfiction (or all non-fiction that is not memoir, self-help, or history). As I’ve said, the problem with using absolute words and ideas is that the author opens themselves up to contradiction.
Since non-narrative nonfiction—academic and scientific texts, political theory, etc.—hinges on the power of its reasoned argument, the effect is perhaps even more jarring, because these contradictions have the potential to collapse the logic of the argument the author wishes to construct.
Consider the following paragraph from an academic study I recently edited. Once again, notice the words that I’ve placed in bold.
“We should not be surprised that ample media coverage of firearm violence can arguably be linked to a spike in real firearm violence. The WHO is unequivocal: ‘There is increasing evidence that media can play a significant role in either enhancing or weakening firearm violence prevention efforts. Media reports about firearm violence may minimize the risk of imitative (copycat) violence or increase that risk. The media may provide useful educational information about firearm violence or spread misinformation about it.’”
Like the first grain of sand that leads to the corrosion of a grand edifice, the small error contained within this quotation made me question that there was something amiss about the author’s entire argument.
On the one hand, the author states that the WHO is “unequivocal” on this point. Because the word “unequivocal” is defined as, “leaving no doubt; unambiguous,” this is, in short, an “absolute” statement. However, the ensuing statement from that organization is far from unequivocal. Actually, it leaves significant room for doubt.
For now, let’s put aside the possibility that the author appears to have somewhat misread the statement, when she states that the WHO is arguably claiming that media coverage of firearm violence can be linked to real firearm violence. Indeed, from that organization’s statement—“…a significant role in either enhancing or weakening firearm…” etc.—it appears that the opposite could arguably be true, as well.
But, even if the WHO’s statement did not contain both possibilities—limiting itself only to writing, in that instance, “…a significant role in weakening firearm…” etc.—consider the WHO’s word choice. Their use of words like “can” and “may” (like, “could”) suggests that there is a possibility that the opposite is true. This is quite different from established fact. Indeed, it does not appear that the WHO is saying much of anything here (one might even go so far as to say the WHO are “equivocating,” or “using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself”).
Like the first grain of sand that leads to the corrosion of a grand edifice, the small error contained within this quotation made me question that there was something amiss about the author’s entire argument.