Pre-emption
The thing about the cultural anthropoligical view is that, unless you are a cultural anthropologist, it’s not the place to stop. Because tolerance, acceptance, neutrality, non-judgmentalism never is the place to stop. That’s one of the advantages of being human, isn’t it – we are able to second-guess things, and ask for something better, so we should never permananently and thoroughly give up that ability and right.
We can suspend it at times, obviously. You don’t go to a friend’s house and tell her how to do things. (On the other hand, if you somehow discover that serious abuse is going on, you may want to intervene, with all the attendant difficulties and worries that possible duty raises.) But that is not the same thing as, and should not be confused with, either 1) never making any critical judgment at all or 2) accepting or approving everything no matter what.
No matter what; sight unseen; unconditionally; in advance: all are bad and dangerous ways to think. The Euston Manifesto has sparked a lot of discussions of cultural relativism, and many people think (or claim to think) it’s a fiction, but it isn’t at all. The very word ‘Islamophobia’ which is so readily flung around is a symptom and an example of cultural relativism. The word itself forms a mandate not to criticise Islam because to do so is ‘phobic’: irrational, neurotic, mistaken, hostile, fearful; and also, on the assumption that Islam is a race rather than a religion (which of course it isn’t), a form of racism. That’s a lot of work for one word to do, but it does it. (Why else would Comment is Free include Bunglawala?) As long as the word Islamophobia is in popular currency and used not (inaccurately but in another sense reasonably) to mean hostility to all Muslims no matter what, but to mean criticism of Islam, then it’s no good saying there is no cultural relativism; there is a lot of it.
Perhaps it clarifies to think of it as not so much cultural relativism as in advance, unconditional, sight unseen, pre-emptive thinking, or non-thinking. They describe the same thing, but perhaps the alternative term makes it more obvious what the problem is. The problem is this business of deciding ahead of time what the mandatory conclusion is, and then always reaching that conclusion, without considering evidence and without analysis.
It’s much like the way that religious argument functions, as a matter of fact – where no amount of evidence is relevant or heeded, and attempts to cite evidence are called ‘scientism’ and reductionism and then rebuked on the grounds that they claim anything that can’t be measured doesn’t exist; all that just boils down to saying ‘don’t ask, don’t look, don’t think, don’t evaluate.’ But we need to be able to evaluate and ask and think, we need to be able to reject as well as accept. Without that ability we can’t change or correct or fix or reform anything, not political systems nor economic arrangements nor traditions nor gender relations nor anything else. Life without the ability to second-guess and then fix or change anything would be hellish.
Ah, I hear my favorite drum beating. Love that rhythm!
“The problem is this business of deciding ahead of time what the mandatory conclusion is, and then always reaching that conclusion, without considering evidence and without analysis…”
But just look at it OB. Just give up critical thinking, give up your capacity to think and learn and search for truth, and in return you get to believe anything your little heart desires. What a bargain! Who could resist?
Of course, the universe isn’t required to accomodate your beliefs, so it isn’t such a great bargain for most people. But that’s what makes it so insidious. The pragmatic concerns which limit belief don’t fall on everyone equally, do they?
“Without that ability we can’t change or correct or fix or reform anything, not political systems nor economic arrangements nor traditions nor gender relations nor anything else. Life without the ability to second-guess and then fix or change anything would be hellish.”
Hellish for whom? Being unquestioned actually serves pretty well for those on top, those who most fervently push (oddly absolutist) cultural relativism and dogmatic religion. The suspension of critical thinking is engaged in and promoted by those in power. Faith of one sort or another – ideological or religious – is the universal tool of oppression, it has a million-and-one uses and doesn’t cost a dime.
Mmmyeah, up to a point, G, but only up to a point. A lot of people on top wouldn’t be on top if everything everywhere were static, and a lot of them know it (they’re proud of being self-made). Still, I take your point, especially since it’s one I’ve been making for a long time – that dalits and women are much less likely to be uncritical fans of their own ‘cultures’ than Brahmins and men are. So I overgeneralized.
On reading this post and G’s comment I was struck by the thought that faith and belief are, far from being synonymous, mutually exclusive. I say this because I think that most people who have faith would still defend the evidential basis for the vast majority of their beliefs, and some readily concede that faith is what you have when there is no evidence; or maybe the thought struck me so hard that I am having delusions?
It reall is keen to see this case you build for valuing other ideas. Perhaps we need to begin to learn new ways to tolerate ambiguity a bit more so that we can grow shared ideas to replace narrow mindedness. What do you think?
Tolerating ambiguity (along with uncertainty) is one of the better ideas around, I think.