The benefit of the doubt

I find people tend to grant others the benefit of the doubt with far too much leniency. I see it in politics, pop culture, and especially on a personal level. Often it can expand to become a blinded adoration, where people choose to see only in a positive light out of fear of realising that maybe there are no good choices in sight. That maybe they have to look harder, or challenge the system to find what they truly want. That maybe what they want is not one of the choices. This is why people call Kamala Harris “brat”, or believe that Taylor Swift is a feminist icon, and it is why people stay in toxic relationships. Because they choose to see the good, and consequently, ignore the possibility that maybe there are no good choices in sight.

I catch myself doing this too. I tend to assume people are not ill-intended, I attempt to rationalise their actions. Because surely no sound-minded person would consciously wish harm upon others? And I do still believe this for the most part (there are exceptions). But I also believe that harming someone unconsciously can be just as bad as doing it consciously. And that overlooking how your actions are harming others is certainly just as bad as doing so intentionally. Because you should be aware of and held accountable for the consequences of your actions. This is why people call presidents war criminals and “asesinos”, because although they didn’t do the killing themselves, they are still at fault for all of the deaths caused by the army which is at their command. This should be applicable to your personal life too.

Although justifying people’s bitterness out of giving them the benefit of the doubt is often a kind act, because it is true that they may have had a bad day, and who knows what they’ve been through; it is also disrespectful to oneself to overlook your own mistreatment. It is important to become comfortable with confrontation.

I can’t say for certain if this is a human tendency or simply a recurrent trend I have noticed in my surroundings, both because I am not a sociologist and I am not keen on making sweeping generalisations. But I am confident enough to say that as a society we need to question how easily we grant people the benefit of the doubt. In the political and cultural sphere, society needs to progress past the need to glorify. Electoral juxtaposition must stop being used to expel political candidates from their own flaws, and celebrities as a whole must stop being viewed as anything but a marketing project.

In the personal sphere, this change is perhaps even more crucial. Because people tend to really struggle with seeing their loved ones as multi-faceted people. Just because they are your friend, or your partner, or you’ve known them since you were children, does not mean that they are not capable of horrible things. Just because they are kind to you, does not mean they are kind to everyone. People are multifaceted and ever-changing, and no matter how well you know a person, anyone is capable of upholding oppressive structures. Whether intentional or not, everyone should be held accountable for the effects of their actions because it is one’s responsibility to constantly be empathetic and question your own actions.

This is not to say that trust should be eliminated. Not at all. If anything, trust and community are some of the most important pillars of society. But trust must not remain unconditional if we wish to continue to build a society based on reflection and deconstruct pillars of oppression. We must push against phenomena of ‘the benefit of the doubt’ in favour of sociopolitical progress through self-questioning and pushing others to question the effects of their acts. We must not avoid confrontation simply out of giving others the benefit of the doubt.