Snipped from an Amazon.com book review:
"Let's assume the following groups:
1. Those who hate Jews: commonly known as anti-Semites. People in this group can safely be assumed to also hate Israel and Zionism.
2. People who are impartial to (or are friends with or are themselves) Jews, but are critical of policies and actions of Israel, especially as regards the treatment of Palestinian Arabs over the years. Let's also assume that some in this group make it their life's work to research and expose such actions to the relative exclusion of all other issues.
3. A presumed majority of Jews, who admit a certain bias towards Israel, but think of themselves as reasonably fair minded and open to argument (I consider myself in this group).
4. Hypothetical members of a Jewish "lobby", who in the interests of defending Israel at all costs (and possibly self-enrichment) will resort to a number of tactics, including expropriating the memory of the Holocaust for their own selfish ends, and especially playing an anti-Semitism card to deflect otherwise legitimate criticism of Israel that may emanate from those in group 2.
All these groups have many members, but it's impossible to say how many or even the relative ratios... Finkesltein [sic] would have us believe that he is in the second group. But since people in group 1 would like to present themselves as belonging to group 2 wherever possible, this is hard to take at face value..."
Hm. Makes me wonder.
Q: "Is it possible to be impartial?"
A: "i do not know... even the very words and phrases chosen can often smuggle in a slant or bias, whether intentional or not."
Q: "Is it necessary to strive for impartiality in the first place?"
A: "i think so. Better to be the open mind that fails in a bid for truth, rather than a closed mind which succeeds in not caring."
With that said, i offer a look at the process used in my attempts to seize truth. In the excerpt, an author began a book review with what i thought was impartiality. Then i hit the second paragraph, whereupon the slant of it whacked me square between the eyes. Worse after that, a rereading of the first paragraph made me realise the hidden biases apparent up there as well. So i decided to pull it all apart for a better understanding.
Starting from the top...
Let's assume the following groups:
1. Those who hate Jews... [polemically anti-Jew and anti-Israeli-policy]
2. People who are impartial... [non-polemically pro-Jew and anti-Israeli-policy]
3. A presumed majority of Jews... [non-polemically pro-Jew and pro-Israeli-policy]
4. Hypothetical members of a Jewish "lobby"... [polemically pro-Jew and pro-Israeli-policy]
... i see a listing of two groups without caveat as to their tangible presence, a third group asserted to be a majority, and a caveat of "hypothetical" upon the fourth. i would say that this slants the piece by smuggling in a notion of "only three of these actually exist; the third naturally represents most Jews; the fourth is just speculation". A simple smuggle like that suggests a lack of objectivity in the argument, due to a lack of evidence given for the assertion about group 3, plus the author's withholding of credibility against the very people (group 4) whose presence might most harm the credibility of the author's chosen comrades (group 3).
Next...
All these groups have many members, but it's impossible to say how many or even the relative ratios.
... i find this sentence provides no evidence for the claim of group membership being a case of "impossible to say how many". i would say that slants the piece by smuggling in a notion of "it's already cut-and-dried that we have no numbers of membership in these groups." The simple smuggle affects the entire argument's factual integrity; what if there are numbers available, yet the author simply hasn't taken sufficient pains to uncover them?
(Interestingly, the claim about impossibility seems to contradict the assertion about Group 3, i.e., the group allegedly a "presumed majority of Jews". How can the author know such a thing yet also be unable to "say how many or even the relative ratios"? But i digress...)
Now, as mentioned, this entire suspicion of bias was only inspired after i started the second paragraph. Here it begins...
Finkesltein [sic] would have us believe that he is in the second group. But since people in group 1 would like to present themselves as belonging to group 2 wherever possible, this is hard to take at face value.
i stopped reading after that, because i found immediately that the statement seemed to smuggle an unsupported assertion while also avoiding a significant part of the whole truth. First, the author hasn't offered any evidence or proof that any members of Group 1 want to belong in Group 2. Second, the levying of that assertion solely versus the group most adversarial to the author's apparent viewpoint, avoids how it might apply elsewhere--e.g., should we ask whether the members of Group 4 would wish to belong in Group 3?
* * *
Given the above deconstruction, i find myself hard pressed to read further in the author's commentary, since i anticipate more slant and bias of the type apparently found. Regardless i do still find the piece useful, if only as an example of how a deconstructive process can identify any smuggles lurking beneath an ostensibly neutral statement.
To be fair, i cannot claim this process will prove anything about authorial intent, since the author is the only one who truly knows. Nor can i claim that my perceptions are necessarily any clearer, or less biased, than those of the person(s) i critique. All i can say for certain, is that a good analysis will often point to key questions... questions which the author ideally should be willing to answer, be it at least to grudgingly demonstrate good faith, or else at best to cheerfully clarify all points of doubt.
