Two neighbors brought a disagreement to a village elder for resolution. The elder listened to both sides and told each one, “You are right.” This led to confusion as the wife pointed out that both couldn’t be right. The elder acknowledged her observation by saying, “You are right too.” While this approach seemed to please everyone, it failed to deliver justice. The appeal of neutrality lies in its ability to maintain harmony, control emotions, and keep mediators welcomed in all quarters. However, when neutrality blurs the lines between truth and falsehood, it becomes an evasion rather than a virtue.
Psychologist Dan Gilbert from Harvard highlights that flawed decisions often stem from the illusion of objectivity in judgment. Our minds assess facts, risks, and rewards through biased filters shaped by experiences, memories, and expectations. The challenge with neutrality arises from the varied perspectives through which individuals view the same issue. People tend to recognize bias in others while overlooking their own assumptions as common sense. The most perilous bias is the belief in one’s own objectivity.
In Bangladesh, neutrality poses an additional challenge as neutral individuals frequently find themselves isolated. The prevailing social dynamic dictates a binary stance: either you are with me or secretly aligned with the opposing side. Neutrality is tolerated only if it doesn’t hinder reciprocal favors. A columnist may delve into topics involving CEOs, employees, industries, regulators, and public policies, potentially straining relationships with individuals known to them. While fearless writing is appreciated when directed at others, personal or professional ties can quickly turn sour when the scrutiny shifts closer to home.
In political and administrative realms, similar dynamics come into play with far-reaching consequences. Bureaucrats often face career implications based on perceived political allegiances, with those lacking visible affiliations sometimes more vulnerable than their less competent but politically connected counterparts. Research underscores the real social costs of neutrality, with studies showing negative reactions towards close friends who remain neutral during conflicts. Neutrality is often interpreted not as fairness but as a disloyal act.
This sheds light on the steep price of neutrality, which may result in strained relationships, missed opportunities, and exclusion from influential circles. Conversely, aligning with a faction may safeguard one’s position but at the expense of independent judgment and credibility. Striking a balance involves maintaining neutrality between individuals while upholding principles of evidence, law, fairness, transparency, and public interest. Consistency in applying these standards, even when it may not be popular, is crucial as principles are not intended for popularity contests.
While the village elder managed to please everyone by remaining neutral, such a luxury is unsustainable for a society. In times of institutional fragility, widespread wrongdoing, and demands for loyalty from powerful groups, silence should not be mistaken for neutrality but rather as complicity without courage. While a neutral individual may face personal losses for not aligning with a camp, a nation forfeits its moral compass when no one is willing to stand outside partisan lines.
