Unwelcome Criticism I

ABSTRACT:
This dialogue (see below) is a rough metaphor for the general pattern of how minority "crazy" beliefs come to be accepted by the larger academic community.The hegemony of established theories and "facts" make it very difficult just to get anyone of power to "lend you their ears". Add unconventional theories on to academia's competition, and it seems as much a miracle as a triumph of reason. I shall have an uphill battle, no doubt.

In Anthropology, the universal approach to the study of "cultures" is not that of objectivity per se, but more specifically the assumption that all ways of life, are equal. All cultures are to try to be understood on their own terms, because that's really the only way they'll make any sense. Implied in this approach is the assumption of human rationality--people make rational decisions and logical calculations...Cultural relativism is awesome; the issue I have with this kind of relativism is not in the soundness of the theory, but in the reasonableness of its application. Relativism is an excellent tool of methodology when studying other cultures. If all our research is conducted with the tentative assumption that their social structure "works", that their practices "make sense" in context, then we will produce a coherent and maximally objective synthesis of information.  But if your family or friends express disgust or hostility toward the foreign customs and beliefs you explain to them over dinner, do you rebuke them in the name of relativism, try to change the subject, or maybe nod in agreement?  

"Who is to say this is wrong?", snaps the Moral Relativist. "Who are you to say what they should and should not believe; who are you to judge the reasonableness of their judgments or morality of their institutions?" Relativism is his replacement for religion, despite his allegiance to secularism... But I am no Moral Relativist, I am a Christian, and I have no problem explaining universal morality across cultures to my future children. I am comfortable with dinner-table value judgments. 

But let's consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle: Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task. Anyone who dabbles in politics and has at least roughly formed ideologies about how government should be structured and what place it should have in the life of a citizen should recognize this truth. But it doesn't just apply to the state, it applies to all aspects of social organization: All versions thereof vary in their efficacy of fulfilling a social need...Not all cultures are equal. 

Me: The sky is not blue.

You: What? Yeah...it IS.

Me: No, no it isn't. It's not blue.

You (confounded and irritated): Ye....what, what are you saying? This is ridiculous.

Me: I can prove it.

You: If you're going to go into some complicated scientific elaboration, I don't really care to hear it. The sky is blue, as far as everybody is concerned.

Me: Look up.

You: Look it up? Look up what? (whips out iPhone, thumb ready to prove me wrong)

Me: No, no LOOK UP!

You: ...Oh.. (cheeks flushed with embarrassment)

Me: So does that sky look blue to you?

You: (staring at the woolly gray blanket that cloaks the Northwest for several months out of the year) No. No, it's not blue.

Me: (smiles smugly)


This dialogue is a rough metaphor for the general pattern of how minority "crazy" beliefs come to be accepted by the larger academic community. Of course, there are a lot of fringe scholars that never do succeed in getting the main body of academics to look up and see that the sky is gray, partially (in my opinion) because they never insist on the rationality of their ideas. The hegemony of established theories and "facts" make it very difficult just to get anyone of power to "lend you their ears". The elite, the supreme theoreticians, the cream of the intellectual crop, are tucked away in ivory towers, where blasphemous cries are unlikely to be heard, and much less are welcome.

I know it sounds dramatic. But despite popular belief, academia is quite dramatic: crusades are begun, witch hunts carried out, feuds perpetuated. Great minds (well, at least they think they're great) spar--they write a book (or a lecture that becomes a smash hit on YouTube), and then write another after a retort is published, and then when they die they leave the next scholastic response to their favorite student.

All this to say, I doubt it's much easier to "make it" in highly competitive ivy-league universities than it is in Hollywood. Add unconventional theories on to that, and it seems as much a miracle as a triumph of reason. I shall have an uphill battle, no doubt.

I won't be too much of a grumbling hypocrite though, since I do realize the potential power free speech, particularly in cyberspace, really has. I'm going to exercise that free speech right here, with subsequent blasphemies against "Science" and "Progress" and the like to come in later posts.

Before I willfully desecrate a holy temple of modern Reason, specifically the temple of Relativism, let me just say...

 God bless America.

Oops, I think I just did.

The Temple of Relativism

In Anthropology, the universal approach to the study of "cultures" is not that of objectivity per se, but more specifically the assumption that all cultures, all ways of life, are equal. People don't do bad, they do different. They don't live worse, they live different. They don't think wrong, they think different. All cultures are to try to be understood on their own terms, because that's really the only way they'll make any sense. Implied in this approach is the assumption of human rationality--people make rational decisions and logical calculations; this can be evinced if we try to understand the perspective, the worldview, that shapes their motivations and consequently their actions within a given social framework.

Cultural relativism is awesome. Well, let me qualify. The issue I have with this kind of relativism is not in the soundness of the theory, but in the reasonableness of its application. I think relativism is an excellent tool of methodology when studying other cultures--it's the traction tires that keep us from sliding into the mire of ethnocentrism, and the consequent narrow-mindedness that develops from wading laboriously through an deep and endless valley of ideological muck. Besides, in my field evaluative statements, or "value judgments", are strictly prohibited. Even if we personally disapprove, we will never say it. All this is good, methodologically. If all our research is conducted with the tentative assumption that their social structure "works", that their practices "make sense" in context, then we will produce a coherent and maximally objective synthesis of information. 

But what happens when you go home at the end of the day and you're no longer an anthropologist, but a mother, no longer a scientist, but a role model and leader? If your family or friends express disgust or hostility toward the foreign customs and beliefs you explain to them over dinner, do you rebuke them in the name of relativism, try to change the subject, or even nod in agreement? 

I can tell you what those anthropologists who subscribe to not just cultural relativism, but moral relativism would do. (And many of them do; it's an intellectual virus on campus that is hard to escape.) They would rebuke their friends; "Who is to say this is wrong?", snaps the Relativist. "Who are you to say what they should and should not believe; who are you to judge the reasonableness of their judgments or morality of their institutions?" Relativism is their replacement for religion, despite their allegiance to secularism; their simple guidebook in the absence of a sacred text or god. (Ironically, it does become a sacred text--read God of the Journalists to see what I mean.)

I, however, live not by relativism but by faith, faith in a One True God and the goodness of his commandments. I have a sacred text that tells me right from wrong pretty clearly most of the time. So I am no Moral Relativist, and I have no problem explaining universal morality across cultures to my future children. I am comfortable with dinner-table value judgments. 

But let's set aside morality for just a second, and consider a heresy against cultural relativism as a guiding principle:

Some social structures, institutions, and practices are more successful than others at accomplishing their task.

I know. Mind-blowing. Scandalous. 

But let's really really think about this. Anyone who dabbles in politics and has at least roughly formed ideologies about how government should be structured and what place it should have in the life of a citizen should recognize this truth. But it doesn't just apply to the state, it applies to all aspects of social organization: marriage, kinship structure, economy, social hierarchy, gender relations, etc. All versions thereof vary in their efficacy of fulfilling a social need--the general task being to support the physical and emotional welfare of all individuals in a society. So if my first statement is true, it follows that, as far as fulfillment of social welfare is concerned,

Not all cultures are equal. 

Gasp! The horror!