Judgementalism, as you may have guessed, is a word I coined no more than two minutes ago. A word stemming from “judgemental”. To define it, we may begin by defining “judgemental”: “of or concerning the use of judgement”. Now I guess we need to define “judgement”: the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions; an opinion or conclusion; a decision of a law court or judge. Judgementalism derives its meaning from the former two.
In today’s landscape of discourse, to call someone judgemental is to disparage them. It’s a term packaged with the implicature that someone ought not to be judgemental, and that they should be ashamed for being thus. However, the strict definition says nothing of the sort. Someone who is judgemental is merely someone who has made a conclusion. What is so wrong about making conclusions? Judgementalism is the act of calling someone “judgemental” in order to disregard opposing arguments, or more aptly, discrediting the person making the arguments by associating them with shame.
If person A comments negatively on something person J thinks positively of, person J does not need to engage in debate in order to protect their point of view. Person J, being a judgementalist can draw the judgemental-card from their sleeve, nullifying (from their perspective) anything person A says, valid or invalid. I’m not sure why people think this is a good card to play. It makes you look stupid, or at least unwilling to invoke intelligence.
An approach that would be more helpful is engaging healthy debate that would otherwise be denied by the shame-inciting judgementalist approach. Person J may find that their point of view can withstand scrutiny and is therefore a better (from the perspective of truth) opinion; or, person J may discover they may actually be wrong, and so change positions without any loss of dignity, since person A is presumed to be a healthy debater.
Let “judgemental” be the word that begins the debate, not the word that halts every disagreement by shaming someone else for thinking. Call someone judgemental when they have made a judgement. Then elaborate on the initial points made, bolstering the original arguments. Perhaps you can challenge it instead. It does not matter which way you argue, only that you argue with truth as the goal, not for ego masturbation or protection (as the judgementalist does). If someone decides to evangelise their judgementalism through its use, be sure to ask them, sincerely, why they disagree.
Be judgemental. Don’t be a judgementalist.
