Benaltrism: what it consists of and why it is necessary to get rid of it
Benaltrism, a term still little known in Italy but which involves all of us. This word indicates a harmful mechanism adopted by some people to change the subject, evade arguments considered uncomfortable, underestimate, downplay certain problems and minimize their own faults, accusing the interlocutor in turn. Benaltrism makes room for itself in comments and discussions, giving rise to a vicious circle that prevents any attempt to establish a constructive dialogue between the parties in the bud. This rhetorical phenomenon, based therefore on the strategic choice of certain words, concerns the most disparate fields, from politics to culture, passing through the discussions that animate our days. In this article, we will go to the bottom of the question, investigating the meaning of benaltrism, its meanings and applications and why it constitutes a vice from which we must try to refrain.
The meaning of benaltrism
The Treccani dictionary defines this term as the “tendency to support the need to go far beyond the solutions that are outlined to solve a problem”. While the Oxford Dictionary describes it as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or a difficult question, making a counter-accusation or raising a different question". So, the words used change, but the gist remains the same.
Benaltrism (known in English with the "expression" whataboutism ") is an artificial rhetorical trick that originates from the" tu quoque ", a device of Latin origin with which a person accused of a certain crime tries to discredit the accuser, accusing him in turn of a guilt deemed equal or worse or by shifting attention to another topic that has no type of correlation with the original motion of accusation.
The term benaltrism is a neologism that takes hold in Italy and is used for the first time in sports journalism since the 1980s. Initially, this expression was used above all in politics, fertile ground for a certain propensity to evade issues considered uncomfortable. In reality, this strategy lasts over time and even today it is adopted during rallies, whether on television or not, Italian or foreign, which see two opposite political factions clashing rather than confronting each other.
More generally, benaltrism has become an increasingly widespread term in mass culture and a fact that can also be found in everyday life. But how does it work? Simple. You talk about a problem, trying to emphasize its gravity and come up with possible solutions, but your interlocutor replies, arguing that there are much more serious and urgent problems in the world to deal with. This is only an example, but the declinations with which benaltrism manifests itself during or at the end of a discussion are many. Basically, what we try to do through this rhetoric fallacy is to deprive a given question of its legitimacy and shift the focus to a topic considered more relevant or more "comfortable" for the person who wants to talk about it. This happens, for example, even when our interlocutor does not find sufficiently solid arguments to support his thesis or finds himself unable to respond to a criticism or accusation, recognizing that he is in the wrong, but still refusing to assume his responsibilities.
Benaltrismo VS right to complain
Benaltrism also affects what we might call the "right to complain". It will have happened to everyone, at least once in their life, to let off steam with someone about their own dilemma or a difficult moment and be belittled because “these will never be the problems! Think about who is worse off than you! ”. This sentence, however truthful and at times consoling, if analyzed more carefully, reveals a "toxic" aspect of the matter since it takes away the dignity of certain problems, mistakenly considering them irrelevant or "secondary".
Public figures know something about it. It often happens that these are overwhelmed by insults and controversies as a result of their complaints considered inappropriate due to the privileged status they find themselves possessing. While there is no doubt that a certain VIP victimization is rather cloying and inappropriate compared to a much more dramatic general situation, on the other hand it is clear that no one can claim the right to establish which issues deserve empathy and attention and which do not.
It is, in fact, a question of subjectivism linked to a person's personal sensitivity, culture and social context and which, for these reasons, cannot be subjected to the judgment of others.
Furthermore, in these cases, it is not constructive to attack the interlocutor in a rude way, minimizing the difficulties that the latter is going through. Even if in our eyes and in our experience it is certainly not a tragedy, we still try to listen to that person and help him, pointing out that it is a problem that can be easily solved and that it certainly does not deserve so much pain. In this way, we would still be able to contextualize it, putting it into perspective, without having to compare it to issues that have plagued the world since the beginning of time.
When we resort to a benevolent logic
When it comes to benaltrism, it should be emphasized that there are specific topics in which this trend is more rooted than in others.These are hot topics around which public opinion usually polarizes in clear and opposite sides. Feminism, environmentalism, inclusiveness, are among the issues that are more difficult to debate without falling into a vulgar benaltrism. In this case it is not just theoretical discussions, but real battles that someone will try to boycott and belittle, pretending that they are not problems on the agenda. In doing so, this type of interlocutor demonstrates a certain dullness and complete adherence to conservative thinking.
To get a clearer example, just think of a case that recently attracted media attention. Beatrice Venezi, conductor, takes the stage of the Ariston and refuses to be called director. This feminine appellation has a symbolic value, aimed at recognizing the authority and presence of a professional figure that until a few years ago did not exist due to gender discrimination, but for women there is something demeaning in it. L "Venezi's statement has generated not a few controversies and, in various comments posted on social media, many of her supporters have stained themselves with benaltrism, defining the issue as" useless "and asserting that feminism has other more serious problems to deal with. In reality, one thing does not exclude the other. It is in fact possible to face all the problems without necessarily having to order them in ideological hierarchies.
More generally, it is possible to run into benevolent reactions even without setting oneself up as human rights advocates. Just complain about a simple ailment because someone starts making you a list of their health problems and don't dare even think about saying that you are tired after a hard day at work because "at least you have a job", or, “Think about who wakes up at 4 every day!”.
Why a benevolent rhetoric is problematic
A benaltrist reasoning presents more than one basic problem. First of all, as already pointed out several times, it does not recognize certain issues as legitimate on the basis of an imaginary and subjective scale of gravity. Furthermore, it is a mechanism steeped in hypocrisy: in words, we are all good at belittling a certain problem, but in practice would we be just as good at refraining from any complaints if that problem touched us too?
Without considering that, due to a certain intellectual snobbery of which benaltrism becomes an accomplice, we risk losing focus on important issues, moving away from possible solutions and intelligent conclusions.
Lastly, and not least, resorting to a fallacy and benaltrist rhetoric means to de-responsibility a person, an institution but also a political faction from its own faults, putting in place a continuous barrel of responsibility between the parties that will only contribute to aggravate the situation.
How to get rid of benaltrism
In short, it is clear that, in this way, benaltrism does not lead anywhere. In the world there will always be someone who will be worse off than us as there will always be more dramatic situations than others, the fact remains that every circumstance is unique and, as such, deserves to be recognized. Furthermore, it is rather stupid even to think that this type of reasoning can calm the mind and cancel any problem, simply by diminishing it. The advice we give you, in anticipation of a possible meeting with a benaltrista, is to keep yourself constantly updated, informing yourself and deepening the issues to build your own personal opinion that you will then be able to support without wavering. Keep calm and make it clear to your interlocutor that the competition to see who is worse off does not benefit anyone, not even him, and that recognizing the validity of one problem is certainly not the same as denying that of another.
