A lot of people, citing cultural anthropologists, tell me
that I can't say that my culture is better than somebody else's. I am
expressing an ethnocentric prejudice.
Yet cultural anthropologists, if the summary of their
position in my History of the Modern World is
correct, actually do let me say such a thing. To them, according to Palmer, Colton, and Kramer, "no
culture or society was 'better' than any other, all being adaptations to an
environment." The permission taken away in the first part of the sentence
is restored in the second. I can say, "This culture has adapted better
than that one." Better.
For support I point to Chinese culture. Its emphasis on
education has filled the awards lists of American high schools with the names
of its young. Note the number of graduates high in Silicon Valley. The Chinese
have adapted better than anybody to the California environment.
So, we have another reminder (after Post #56) that as soon
as we contemplate a particular end, as soon as we abandon categorical
assertion, we are entitled to, we are obliged
to, discriminate among means. (See Post # 8. "Discrimination,"
Rational and Irrational.) Here cultures provide the means. And with all the
other ends people may have in a mixed society we may do the same.
All right, I move through a mixed society — the U.S., and
more and more the world — with a permit to use the words "better" and
"worse" with respect to cultures. Holding the permit is not enough,
though. You've got to get somebody to honor it. And in today's universities
you'll have a devil of a time. "Value judgment" is still a put-down
word in science lounges. Look as if you're going to make such a judgment and a
sociologist will snort like a spooked horse. You've violated an axiom:
"There are or can be no value judgments that are true, that is,
objectively justifiable, independent of specific cultures."
So with many of my colleagues listening I still can't say
what I want to say to people who force women to have clitorectomies. What do I
want to say? This: "You stink. Your culture stinks. Any culture that
encourages doing this to little girls stinks."
There was once a way of placing that statement (tempered, of
course) under an acceptable category: possible truth. If mankind were one, if
sympathies were universal, and if some sympathies were so beneficial that, if
shared, they improved the life of all mankind, then there was the chance that any
individual, at any time, might express one. If history showed that life was
indeed improved when the displayed sympathy was shared then the statement had
all the verification needed to be called a "truth."
That way of placing value statements was developed in the
18th century, during the Enlightenment, a period now in bad repute. Its
universalism has not stood up under the poundings of relativism. And
verification of its "truths"? That comes so far in the future. You
have to believe in "progress."
Oh that we Enlightenment types could live for that
verification. Oh to be there to see relativists put down. Oh that the
Enlightenment had a God who could bring us all together after time has run its
course.
I see a representative of the offending culture, surveying
the full sweep, seeing where it ended, reflecting for a while and saying,
"Clitorectomy, you know. That really did stink."
But God has arranged it so that we're still human. The
enlightened offender reproaches me: "Why didn't you tell me?"
And I, savoring my revenge, say, "Because the cultural
relativists wouldn't let me."
No comments:
Post a Comment