L. RELATIVISM ISN'T A NAUGHTY WORD
"Everyone has a right to his own opinions, but no one has a right to his own facts."
The word "relativism" simply refers to the fact that whatever we see or know or understand is relative to the place where we stand, with all the partiality and limitation that stance implies.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is with a drawing:
Written history is a good example. We hear reference to "historical relativism" which simply means that the American Revolution, described respectively by American, British and Canadian historians might be written differently. Of course historians seek to be entirely objective. It's the possibility of being "entirely objective" that the idea of relativism questions.
In Howard Zinn's remarkable book, A People's History of the United States, he explains why he has written the book:
"In that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the point of view of the Arawak Indians, of the constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican War as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott's army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American War as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by the Black soldiers on Luzon, the Guilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by Socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by Blacks in Harlem, the post war American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can' see' history from the standpoint of others."
Perhaps this means that all Truth is relative, or in terms of the distinction we made early on, certainly all truths (small t) are. Such a statement is offensive to some people who like to speak of "absolutes"–– moral absolutes, for example (like truth-telling: "always tell the truth, never lie.") That "absolute" sounds reasonable until you consider the German family hiding Jews in their attic and being asked by the Gestapo if they're hiding Jews. To lie in that instance is more moral than to tell the truth. We can all think of other examples of the appropriateness of "moral relativism," or what has sometimes been called "situational ethics."
If we want to be a tolerant people, perhaps we need to be less strident about "absolutes". No less a major theologian than the late Reinhold Niebuhr wrote (in Essays in Applied Christianity): "A pluralistic world like our own, indeed any democratic world, requires a certain degree of relativity on some points of moral practice if not on points of moral doctrine." He goes on to say that in a world like ours the moral choices we face are sometimes not between the right and the wrong solution, but between the wrong and the less wrong, the immoral and the less immoral solution. It does get complicated.
Are there any facts that aren't just a matter of opinion? If there are, one may expect to find them in the area of the physical sciences. The relation of circumference to diameter (pi), the composition of water (H2O), the speed of light–– wait a minute. Even that is being questioned with reference to the whole of the universe.
"Relativism" is not a naughty word, but it can easily become an excuse for lazy thinking and discounting all moral directions, or settling for a totally irresponsible principle that "if it feels good to you it must be right." A lot of injustices have been committed, personally and nationally, by people who thought they were "right."
I don't happen to believe that there are no firm points of certainty from which all other things can be measured and that we are left with bouncing ideas off of each other until the loudest voice wins.
Have you heard the story about the telephone operator who got a call every day just a few minutes before noon from the same person every day asking for the correct time. After awhile the operator's curiosity got the best of her and she asked, "Who is this that calls me every midday to ask the time of day?" The caller explained, "Well, I'm the foreman out at the plant and every noon I'm supposed to blow the noon whistle and I want to be sure I blow it on time, so I call you." "That's interesting," said the operator. "We set our clocks by that noon whistle!"
We can do better than that. Perhaps there's a better word than "relativism", or at least a word that ought to go along with it. We'll suggest it next time.
NEXT TIME: A BETTER WORD - LIQUIDITY
TOOLS AND APPROACHES - L
Comments
Post a Comment