Communication - and Relativism
Communication - and Relativism
In our College community, with its 83 nationalities, it is amazing that communication problems do not arise more frequently than they do. In general, our students are very sensitive towards the attitudes and feelings of others, and it is very rare that they forget to put the needs of others before their own when communicating. And yet, of course, it can and does happen unintentionally. Language is a very public affair. It is the way in which we express our ideas, aspirations, truths, objectives and insights. We use language to tell others of our needs, feelings and intentions. Language can be a weapon, both to wage war and to build harmony!
At its best, language can give us an insight into wisdom and truth - but, of course, it can also express falsity. But what does it mean for language to express truth - is that in itself a meaningless statement? Take a simple statement like: "Murder is wrong." What does it mean if we say that this statement is true? Most people would probably agree with it, but simple agreement would be a very weak basis to claim the statement is true. As I wrote in my blog several weeks ago, 'Truth is not the same as consensus'.
Without wishing to fascinate you with one of my Theory of Knowledge classes, there are two basic theories of truth, or ways of understanding truth.
The first approach is the 'correspondence theory of truth'. This approach maintains that a statement is true if it corresponds to a situation that is independent of language and of the society in which we live. People who hold to the correspondence theory of truth are usually called "realists"; they maintain that statements are either true or false - either the world is flat or it is not flat.
The second, or alternative, approach is the 'coherence theory of truth'. This approach claims that a statement is true if it is consistent with other true statements. People who hold to the coherence theory of truth are called "anti-realists". Anti-realists would claim that the statement "the world is flat" was once true because it was an integral part of the way in which the broad consensus of people viewed the world, but it is no longer true.
These days, truth is being seen more and more frequently in an anti-realist way. A good example is the debate currently underway in many countries over same-sex marriages. If the law of a country is a measure (however imperfect) of the national consensus of truth, then the concept of 'marriage' includes same-sex relationships for people in the Netherlands, Spain and Canada, but it does not to people in Iran, Bolivia and China. From an anti-realist perspective, that is to be expected, as truth in one culture may be quite different from truth in another. To a realist, it implies we are talking about two different concepts - marriage plus something else.
However, it is only a small step from anti-realism to relativism. Relativism asserts there are no absolute facts, truths, rights or wrongs, or morality, but everything needs to be judged in its historical or cultural context. To a relativist, there are no truths 'out there', and one person's 'truth' (read 'opinion') is equally valid with any other person's 'truth' (read 'preconception').
Although relativism seems attractive at first in an age of tolerance - in part because it removes the obligation to think and actually make decisions (you simply accept that others have different views and leave it at that - it’s easy!) - the reality is that no-one really believes deep down in relativism. People may express skepticism about truth and morality in lecture rooms or in print, but afterwards, they will go on to pay their bills before the deadline, drive home on the correct side of the road, and generally avoid anarchic acts such as murder and cannibalism. Unless insane, people do not live as relativists. People care about truth and live within the security of clear-cut rules.
Nonetheless, some people in good faith support one moral position while others may oppose it, and yet both groups will claim they are ethically correct in adopting their particular viewpoint. The realist would claim that there is only one absolute morality, and morality within different societies is right or wrong to the extent that it corresponds to this ultimate standard. The anti-realist would claim that there is no absolute morality - moral standards which may be 'correct' in one society are 'incorrect' in another. According to anti-realists, traditionally accepted understandings of concepts such as family, sexuality, maleness, femaleness, parenthood, culture, and even war, slavery, abortion, euthanasia (and, yes, even cannibalism) can be dismissed as 'dominant discourses' that legitimize injustice and intolerance. In some cases, that may well be true - after all, slavery and discrimination were once widely tolerated and justified (as, sadly, they still are in some countries). My own view is that everything that has value ought be able to withstand the scrutiny of questioning - and yet, as with most things in life, there is danger in taking this to extremes. As Alexander Hamilton (whoever he was!) commented, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything!".
Almost every day at my United World College, we hear about human rights, obligations and service to those in need, ethical ideals, and principles of equity and compassion. In my own heart, I do not believe that any of these is relative. For a relativist, however, human rights are not just diluted but incoherent. Service to the needy become negotiable, virtue becomes flexible so that 'might can be right' and 'greed can beat need'. Equity and compassion become fine for those who freely choose them, but they are simply options, not imperatives. If relativism ever became a dominant mode of thinking, morality, ethics and selfless service towards others would be changed forever.
And yet, we do see growing relativism in many societies. It is seen through greater tolerance of lying, cheating, stealing, breaking of promises and rampant individualism - what the Chinese authorities sometimes refer to as moral pollution, and what others refer to simply as "doing it my way" - living in a consequence-free world. Relativism is claimed to deliver tolerance, mutual respect, and a basis for civic peace. In practice it can impose its own dictatorship through strident intolerance of principled opposition.
Reading what I have written here, I can't believe I have wandered from the brilliance of Fawlty Towers into the quagmire and depression of relativism. The reality is that I love the diversity of perspectives in our world, including the microcosm of these that I encounter every day in my College. The diversity is stimulating and sometimes confronting, yet always enriching and provocative. The challenge, of course, is how to ensure that we always encourage COMMUNICATION of these different perspectives constructively and effectively in a loving and harmonious way - which is really the basic reason that United World Colleges were established in the first place - to bring together young men and women from all parts of the world to live together and to grow in mutual understanding!
Sunday, 11 February 2007