Being able to separate analysis from justification is important when trying to have a productive conversation about difficult topics.
While it’s important, it isn’t always easy to do.
Here are two examples that show how the distinction between analysis and justification is important.
The first stems from Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
A common argument from those on the pro-Palestinian side is that Hamas would not have perpetrated the attack if Israel had not behaved the way it did towards the Palestinians prior to the attack.
Common responses to this argument by those on the pro-Israel side come in the form of questions such as, “Are you arguing the actions of Hamas were justified?” or “Are you saying Israel had it coming?” or “Do you condemn the actions of Hamas?”
Consider the two different paths the conversation can take based on the following responses to these questions:
1. “Hamas are freedom fighters fighting a just cause, their methods are justified.”
2. “Hamas should obviously be condemned; their methods and ideology are unacceptable. This is about wanting to prevent another Oct. 7 and getting to its root causes.”
The point is one can be critical of the government of Israel’s actions toward the Palestinians prior to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack without justifying or supporting terrorism.
It is important to make this distinction.
For a second example, the police chief in London, Ontario recently made the following comment during a media conference in relation to the sexual assault of young women and girls, in the context of sexual assault charges being laid against five members of the 2018 Canadian junior hockey team.
“The sexualization of young women and girls in today’s society is contributing to the violence against women and part of it; and I am not blaming the media; but I do want to highlight, that how we portray young women and girls on TV, in music videos, how we write about them, magazine shoots, all that, contributes to sexual violence and the normalization of what we are seeing.”
There has been some backlash to this comment, which again illustrates the issue of analysis versus justification.
Individuals who are viewing this through the lens of justification will tend to focus on the following questions:
1. Is this a claim that the media is at fault?
2. Is this a claim that men who sexually assault women are either not at fault or are not responsible for their own actions?
Viewing this through the lens of analysis, however, will lead to different questions.
For example, “while men who sexually assault women are clearly responsible for their own actions, are there root causes that exist with regard to why sexual assaults occur?”
Individuals do not take actions in a vacuum and while it makes sense to punish criminals, it is also valid to consider the underlying causes that lead to criminal behaviour.
This is an essential part of crime prevention.
If an individual commits a school shooting, we can simultaneously condemn the behaviour while analyzing the root causes that led to it.
Analyzing the root causes of school shootings does not mean justifying school shootings.
Similarly, analyzing the root causes of drug dealing in the context of drug addiction does not mean justifying drug dealing.
This also applies to societal conditions that may contribute to any type of crime.
In one of these examples, an expert on crime, a police chief, made a statement on possible contributing factors to a certain type of crime.
Are experts correct about everything?
No, but in this case, is the way our society and more specifically our popular culture sexualizes women contributing to sexual assaults against women?
If it is, how can society change the way it portrays women?
Should it attempt to do so?
Could there be unintended consequences from the use of some measures to do so — for example the unjustified censorship of art or advertising?
These are all valid questions
Changing society can have sweeping implications and caution is advised.
— Alex Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp, teaches Disaster and Emergency Management at York University and is the author of Continuity 101. He can be reached at info@prepared.ca.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
