The Psychology Behind Diverting Attention: When Response to Racism Becomes Whataboutism
In a recent exchange, Jen Psaki, a spokesperson for the White House, drew attention to the 2019 incident involving Jussie Smollett, a well-known American actor. During the press briefing, when asked about the hasty and potentially prejudiced comments made about Smollett before all facts were established, Psaki mentioned former President Donald Trump. Her statement, however, lacked specific context, leaving many to question the real intention behind it.
“I think there are lessons learned perhaps for everybody who commented at the time including former President Trump.” This response is often described as Whataboutism—a rhetorical tactic that diverts attention from the original issue by highlighting the shortcoming of someone else. Whataboutism is a classic example of deflecting blame and shifting focus.
Deflecting Attention: A Common Ruse
When a boss or a leader is caught making an egregious mistake, it’s a common human reflex to bring in someone else to take the blame. This technique, often referred to as deflecting, can be seen in numerous instances, not just in politics. The media and public figures often replay these scenarios, reinforcing the notion that deflecting blame is a strategic tool that can work.
Take, for instance, the infamous claim made by Donald Trump that his supporters killed 30,000 people. The media, from CNN to MSNBC, repeated this claim, making it seem like a matter of debate rather than fact. This pattern of disseminating misinformation and repeating false claims can be traced back to historical practices of propaganda.
The Power of Propaganda: Belief in Lies
As George Orwell pointed out, repeating a lie enough times can make people believe it. The principle of repeating a false statement, whether it be a conspiracy theory or a political claim, makes it harder for people to counter such propaganda. This is especially true for those who hear such claims from a young age, like children in schools, who are more susceptible to indoctrination.
The example of Ralph, a typical man who firmly believed that planes did not hit the Pentagon during 9/11, is a stark realization of the power of whataboutism. Despite being presented with overwhelming evidence, Ralph, like many others, chose to believe the alternative narrative. This scenario suggests that whataboutism can serve as a psychological defense mechanism, allowing individuals to maintain their beliefs despite contradictory evidence.
The Case of Psaki and the Confrontation of Beliefs
Psaki’s statement about former President Trump might have been a strategic response, but it raises questions about the underlying motivations. Could the White House, through their spokesperson, be employing a tactic to deflect from the original issue? Given that such statements can often be the result of strategic communications, it is plausible that the White House handlers provided Psaki with a script.
Belief in conspiracy theories, such as those mentioned by Ralph, is not unique to political contexts. From the existence of Yeti to the flat Earth theory, people are often willing to believe in such narratives, regardless of factual evidence. This belief can be deeply entrenched, making reasoned arguments difficult to present.
Conclusion: Understanding the Psychological Nuances
The act of whataboutism and deflecting blame can seem trivial; however, it carries significant psychological and sociological implications. By understanding these tactics, we can better navigate debates and recognize when a statement is being crafted to shift focus or obscure the truth. Whether in politics, media, or everyday life, recognizing the psychological mechanisms involved can empower us to engage more effectively and critically in conversations.
Empirical evidence and critical thinking are our most potent tools in combating misinformation and confirming facts in the age of information. Understanding how these psychological tactics work can shed light on the complex dynamics of public discourse and help us make more informed decisions.
Key Takeaways: Racism and whataboutism are often used as rhetorical tools to shift focus. The strategy of deflecting helps leaders avoid accountability for their actions. Repetition of false or misleading statements can make people more likely to believe them.