What About Me? The Culture of "Whataboutism" Is Hindering Progress In Our Cities

Urban inequality is a pressing global challenge that affects millions of lives daily. From Mumbai to Mexico City, from Lagos to London, cities worldwide struggle with growing disparities between thriving and struggling neighbourhoods. This divide weakens social cohesion and limits a city's sustainable growth and innovation potential.

At the core of this challenge are people - individuals and communities with diverse needs, aspirations, and experiences. A mother in Lagos struggling to find affordable childcare, an older man in Tokyo navigating crowded streets, and a young professional in S?o Paulo priced out of central neighbourhoods. These human stories reflect the real-world impact of urban inequities.

Addressing these inequalities, however, often faces a significant obstacle: whataboutism. This rhetorical tactic, well-known in international politics, has become increasingly common in urban development discussions. A recent Foreign Affairs article defines whataboutism as "the tactic of deflecting criticism of one's bad behaviour by pointing to another actor's bad behaviour." While the article focuses on international relations, this concept applies equally to urban planning and development globally.

In urban settings, whataboutism manifests when city officials deflect criticism about pressing issues. For instance, when confronted about inadequate public housing in Hong Kong, authorities might respond, "What about our world-class public transportation system?" This deflection sidesteps the housing crisis faced by many residents and derails important discussions about urban equity.

The effectiveness of whataboutism in urban contexts is concerning. The Foreign Affairs article notes that when faced with whataboutist retorts, public support for addressing criticized issues declines. Importantly, the article points out, "Whataboutism by U.S. adversaries is just as effective as whataboutist retorts by close allies." Relative to the urban context, this suggests that whataboutism can be a powerful tool for deflecting criticism, regardless of who employs it - be it city officials, community leaders, or other stakeholders.

Moreover, whataboutism fuels a troubling trend toward binary thinking and polarization in urban discourse. It oversimplifies complex urban issues, dividing cities into perceived winners and losers. In Rio de Janeiro, for example, discussions about upgrading favelas often devolve into debates pitting informal settlement residents against formal neighbourhood dwellers, ignoring the nuanced needs of both communities.

Political polarization often involves ideological disagreements over critical societal issues and dislike and distrust of people with opposing views. This kind of polarization is supported and even made likely by a host of fundamental cognitive and social psychological mechanisms that affect perceptions of others, such as the likeability of outgroups - David Bersoff in "Overcoming political polarization: Strategies for diminishing intransigence and reducing intergroup animus" - April 9, 2024.

This polarization breeds what some scholars term "Oppression Olympics," where different groups compete to be seen as the most disadvantaged. In diverse cities like New York or London, this can lead to Global Majority communities vying against each other for limited resources, rather than collaborating to address systemic inequalities that affect them all.

The human cost of this polarization is significant. A refugee family in Berlin struggling to access language classes, an Indigenous community in Vancouver fighting for affordable housing, and precarious workers in Bangkok seeking healthcare access - these diverse needs are often pitted against each other rather than being seen as interconnected aspects of urban equity.

City leaders worldwide are adopting more inclusive, human-centric approaches to address these challenges. Intersectionality, a framework that recognizes the multiple, overlapping forms of advantage or disadvantage people face, is gaining traction in cities from Bogotá to Barcelona. This approach helps craft policies that address the complex realities of urban life, moving beyond one-size-fits-all solutions.

Cultural intelligence and intercultural approaches are crucial tools in creating equitable cities. In multicultural metropolises like Toronto or Sydney, understanding and respecting diverse cultural norms and needs is essential for inclusive urban planning. Cultural intelligence focuses on developing the ability to navigate and respond to cultural differences effectively.

However, there's a growing recognition that more than this approach is needed. Intercultural strategies go a step further, promoting active interaction and dialogue between different cultural groups. Cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam have adopted intercultural policies that encourage mixing in public spaces, multilingual services, and cross-cultural collaboration in decision-making processes. For instance, Amsterdam's "Approach to Diversity" policy emphasizes creating connections between different communities and promoting shared citizenship.

These approaches go beyond tokenistic diversity initiatives. They foster genuine empathy, connection, and mutual understanding among all urban residents. By combining cultural intelligence with intercultural strategies, cities can create environments where diversity is not just accommodated but becomes a source of innovation and social cohesion.

When centred on human experiences, data-driven decision-making can be transformative in addressing urban inequalities and countering whataboutism. Cities like Amsterdam and Seoul are pioneering comprehensive data collection methods that capture residents' lived experiences, revealing hidden patterns of inequity and informing more targeted urban policies. This approach aligns with the Foreign Affairs article's suggestion: "Often, it may be better to allow another country's actions to speak for themselves simply." Letting data and concrete outcomes speak can be a powerful antidote to whataboutist rhetoric.

Collaborative governance models prioritizing community voices show promise in countering the divisive effects of whataboutism. Participatory budgeting has empowered residents from all backgrounds to have a say in urban development decisions. Similar initiatives demonstrate the global potential of this approach in fostering inclusive decision-making.

The physical fabric of our cities must also evolve to embrace equity and combat polarization. Universal design principles are being applied from Oslo to Osaka, creating urban spaces that are accessible and welcoming to all. This includes everything from wheelchair-friendly sidewalks to culturally sensitive public spaces that honour diverse heritages, fostering a sense of belonging for all urban residents.

Economic empowerment remains a cornerstone of urban equity globally. Global cities are implementing targeted programs to address unique barriers different groups face in accessing education, employment, and entrepreneurship opportunities. These initiatives recognize that economic inclusion is fundamental to creating truly equitable urban environments and reducing the appeal of divisive rhetoric.

The global challenge of creating equitable and inclusive cities requires practical action. Urban planners, policymakers, and residents worldwide must work together to implement effective solutions that move beyond whataboutism and polarization.

Key steps include:

1. Adopting data-driven approaches that capture diverse urban experiences

2. Implementing collaborative governance models that include marginalized voices

3. Designing cities with universal accessibility in mind

4. Creating economic opportunities for all urban residents

5. Fostering cultural intelligence and intercultural strategies among city officials and planners

These actions can help create cities where all residents have access to opportunities, regardless of their background. Urban equity issues manifest differently across the globe: Hong Kong- like many other cities - grapples with housing shortages, Toronto faces transportation challenges, Nairobi works to improve education access, and New York strives for equitable healthcare. Despite their diverse contexts, these cities share the common goal of improving the lives of millions of city residents.

Addressing these challenges requires moving beyond whataboutism and polarization. It demands focusing on shared human needs and experiences across different urban contexts. City officials should strive to maintain a consistent record of addressing inequities and promoting inclusion. By doing so, they can reduce their vulnerability to whataboutist attacks and maintain focus on the critical work of building more equitable urban environments. By prioritizing equity and inclusion, cities can become more resilient, innovative, and liveable for all their residents.

The future of our cities depends on our ability to create inclusive urban environments that resist the divisive pull of whataboutism. This is a practical necessity for sustainable urban development worldwide. As we work towards this goal, we must keep the human stories at the heart of urban equity issues front and centre, remembering that behind every statistic is a person, a family, and a community striving for a better urban future.