Whataboutism
Answering a criticism by pointing at a fault of the critic or of someone else, so that the original charge is never addressed and the conversation moves to the counter-charge.
Whataboutism is a change of subject that looks like a reply. "Your government tortures prisoners." "And what about your country's prisons?" The second sentence does not deny the first; it does not need to. It offers the audience a second wrong to think about and relies on them to conclude that two wrongs cancel, or that the critic has forfeited the right to speak. Neither follows, but the original charge is now old news.
The device is the propaganda form of the tu quoque fallacy, and it was a recognized feature of Soviet responses to Western criticism, so much so that "and you are lynching Negroes" became a Russian catchphrase for it. The English word dates from Northern Ireland in the 1970s, where "whataboutery" described the same exchange between the two communities. Exploits Moral Licensing and Availability Heuristic.
Historical examples
Soviet officials and media met Western criticism of political prisoners and censorship with the record of American race relations: "and you are lynching Negroes" (a u vas negrov linchuyut) became so standard a reply that it turned into a joke inside the Soviet Union itself. The reply was not false. It was not an answer.
Zimmer, Ben. "The Roots of the 'What About?' Ploy." The Wall Street Journal, 9 June 2017; "Whataboutism: Come Again, Comrade?" The Economist, 31 January 2008.
"Whataboutery" was coined in Northern Ireland to describe the reflex by which any atrocity was answered with an atrocity from the other side, going back decades, so that no act could be discussed on its own. Commentators of the period described it as the conflict's characteristic rhetorical form.
Cathcart, Rex. The Most Contrary Region: The BBC in Northern Ireland, 1924–1984. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1984; Oxford English Dictionary, "whataboutery," earliest citation 1974.
In advertising and commerce
Companies criticized for labor or environmental practices routinely reply with the practices of competitors or of the critic's own country: "our factories are audited more than most in the sector." The reply may be accurate. It changes the subject from the charge to the comparison, which is the device.
Coombs, W. Timothy. Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2019, on "attack the accuser" strategies.
Find a reply to a criticism that begins "what about." Write down the original criticism. Did the reply say anything about it?
In the wild
Short examples of the technique at work, each with what to notice. The same examples are questions in the quiz, where the answer is not given away.
"You say our accounts are late. What about the council's? Theirs were late three years running."
What to notice. The charge is neither denied nor answered; a second party's fault is offered instead.
"Before anyone lectures us on emissions, they should look at their own country's coal plants."
What to notice. The critic's standing is attacked with a counter-charge and the original question is left open.
"Our product had one recall. Their product had two. So let's talk about them."
What to notice. The recall is conceded and immediately replaced by a comparison, which becomes the conversation.
Sources
- Zimmer, Ben. "The Roots of the 'What About?' Ploy." The Wall Street Journal, 9 June 2017.
- "Whataboutism: Come Again, Comrade?" The Economist, 31 January 2008.
- Walton, Douglas. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0817309220
- Cathcart, Rex. The Most Contrary Region. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1984.