The English idiom “comparing apples and oranges” is often used to dismiss a comparison as illogical or invalid. It suggests that because apples and oranges are fundamentally different, any attempt to draw parallels or contrasts between them is futile. This colloquialism implies that certain things are so dissimilar that they exist in separate categories, making any comparative analysis meaningless. But is this really the case? And more importantly, does this common saying prevent us from making valuable insights?
Often, especially in philosophical and academic discussions, we encounter jargon that seems designed to elevate simple ideas into complex pronouncements. Take, for example, the term “incommensurable.” It’s frequently used to describe things that supposedly cannot be compared because they lack a common standard of measurement. While seemingly precise, this term, much like the “apples and oranges” idiom, can often obscure rather than clarify.
Recently, after a particularly busy week, the idea of “incommensurability” and comparing disparate things came to mind. Feeling overworked, the thought of taking a break arose, quickly followed by the internal voice of comparison. Immediately, a mental list formed of individuals with seemingly more valid claims to stress and overwork: commuters enduring long commutes for unfulfilling jobs, sleep-deprived new parents, underpaid cleaners performing physically demanding labor, and countless others. This internal monologue is a common human experience – we often measure our own struggles against those of others, seeking perspective or perhaps even diminishing our own feelings.
However, as the idiom suggests, directly comparing these different forms of “overwork” feels inadequate, like comparing apples and oranges. The philosophical term “incommensurable” might seem to offer a more sophisticated way to express this sentiment. It suggests that these stresses are so fundamentally different – lacking a shared metric – that comparison is inherently flawed. But as philosopher Ruth Chang pointed out in her 2019 Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture and subsequent papers, the term “incommensurable” is often used too broadly and imprecisely. Instead of bringing clarity, it can muddy the waters. Chang argues that philosophers have used “incommensurable” to encompass a confusing array of loosely connected concepts, hindering rather than helping precise thought.
Chang astutely observes that “incommensurable” does not equate to “incomparable.” We absolutely can compare apples and oranges. The term “incommensurable” is generally understood to mean “lacking a common measure.” Yet, a moment’s reflection reveals numerous common measures applicable to both apples and oranges: color, size, weight, texture (softness), vitamin C content, acidity, and many more. Similarly, when comparing different types of overwork, we can identify various metrics. My experience of overwork, for example, might score lower than others in terms of hours worked, physical exertion, time away from home, or financial compensation.
Furthermore, many metaphorical “apples and oranges” can even be normatively ranked – or, to use simpler language, ranked by value or importance. It is undeniably worse to be overworked in a dangerous mine than at a comfortable desk. Similarly, overwork is often perceived differently depending on whether one is employed or self-employed, or whether the work is enjoyable or tedious. These are qualitative rankings, but rankings nonetheless.
Thus, the notion of “incommensurability” as a barrier to comparison quickly loses its strength. It appears to be as imprecise and vague as simply saying “you just can’t compare them.” What we often mean when we use this idiom or the term “incommensurable” is that the comparison lacks perfect precision because the items being compared aren’t judged by identical criteria. However, this doesn’t preclude comparison altogether. In fact, it highlights the need for nuanced and multi-faceted comparison, acknowledging different criteria and perspectives. Sometimes, these comparisons even allow for a form of ranking or value judgment based on different scales.
It seems that the frequent use of “incommensurable” often represents a reliance on technical jargon that is less effective than clear, ordinary language. The feeling of being overwhelmed yet recognizing one’s relative privilege isn’t clarified by labeling the pressures as “incommensurable.” Instead, what we’re trying to express is more nuanced: while our burdens might be less severe than those of others and even linked to positive circumstances, they still possess unique negative qualities. These negative aspects are not simply erased by acknowledging a generally fortunate position.
Experiences like this are common and are often dismissed as “first world problems” – moving houses, changing jobs, or even minor health issues while traveling. The appropriate approach is to acknowledge both the connection to privilege and the genuine difficulty in coping. These two truths are not contradictory. To demand complete stoicism and dismissal of such problems is unrealistic and inhuman. Conversely, to succumb to the feeling of being uniquely unfortunate amplifies the perceived burden. And resorting to jargon like “incommensurable” in an attempt to understand these complexities often adds unnecessary layers of abstraction where simple, clear thinking is more beneficial.
Instead of avoiding comparisons under the guise of “comparing apples and oranges” or invoking “incommensurability,” we should embrace the challenge of nuanced comparison. It is in recognizing both the similarities and differences, the common and distinct measures, that we gain a richer understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Comparing apples and oranges, in its metaphorical sense, is not a futile exercise, but a valuable tool for critical thinking and a deeper appreciation of the complexities of life’s experiences.
