George W. Bush
Of course, former U.S. President, George W. Bush was not the first person (nor will he be the last) to include such black and white statements within a national narrative. Such 'false dichotomies' have been part of the public discourse for as long as language and rhetoric have been a part of the human capacity.
Such examples are just simply cases of logical fallacies, they are also instances of what linguist George Lakoff terms 'framing'. When one frames a statement or question the speaker is setting the parameters within which the listener exists. If listeners are not cognizant of such rhetorical tactics it is easy for us to find ourselves with, in this case, only the two choices we are presented: help us; or, if you don't, you're helping the terrorists.
Upon reflection, listeners may come to realize that the situation is far more complicated than the 'either/or' in which it was framed...unfortunately, it is often too late to temper the effect of the narratives.
In most complex situations and circumstances the simple answer is rarely the best--or only--answer, however much we may wish it was. Truth be told, most complex situations are best described as shades of grey: they are plural.
Simply put, plurality is the ability to hold two or more--possibly contradictory--thoughts in our minds at once. Plurality then is a recognition of several tings: the complexity of the world-at-large; the complexity of the situations and circumstances humans often exist within in-the-world; and, the combined fact that there is usually more than one perspective as well as more than one or two possible solutions.
Therefore, we have a better chance of understanding the world, and our place in it, if we accept it as a murky grey instead of black and white. It is also worth noting that the latter rarely provides meaningful, equitable, or sustainable solutions, nor does it it address root causes to current situations. It is, in a phrase, an overly simplistic observation of the world.
Problems framed within a dualistic (black and white) narrative tend toward a competitive (neo-liberal) and hierarchical (religion based) view of human nature. On the one side, there is the neo-liberal model that privileges 'free markets' and 'private enterprises'. A competitive model is one that promotes an 'us' versus 'them' mentality over a more collaborative or community oriented one. This is also sometimes referred to as 'social Darwinsim'; a 'survival of the fittest narrative. Here is where we often see survival metaphors. On the other side, is some form of what is called the Puritan, or Protestant, Work Ethic. This belief holds that a persons 'success' is determined singularly through the hard work they devote to it. Just such a conflict existed in the competing narratives surrounding work and success in Victorian literature as seen in, for example, Charles Dickens' Hard Times, or Samuel Butler's, The Way of All Flesh.
When situations and circumstances are viewed from such a competitive model (and, by extensions the 'them' who exist in those situations and circumstances) then 'we' frame the solutions as a narrative where there are 'winners' and 'losers'; and, so, we also return to the survival metaphors when we hold that this is 'just the way the world works' (again, a form of social Darwinism...however unfair and inaccurate to Darwin). The danger gere, as should be obvious, is that the metaphors are seen as literal, or true.
Therefore, if we accept this framed narrative, and its ready-made (read: framed) solutions, we are more likely to accept that, in life, some will 'win' and some will 'lose'. Thereby, supporting whatever drastic responses deemed fit so as to sustain our survival over 'theirs' as, sadly and tragically, necessary. We then will go our merry way believing equilibrium has been restored, the problems have been 'solved' while creating a sub-narrative that allows us to ignore the (often un-necessary) suffering caused to 'them' in the process.
In the worst case scenarios--often situations where we perceive ourselves to be in dire circumstances--we will see the actions against 'them' as necessary in this 'dog eat dog' world. It may be tragic, but we console ourselves in narratives that suggest: "it is the way of things..;" or, "they had it coming..;"or, "they should have known better..,"; or, "what do you expect from those people..."
Often those who cannot stomach such a position or attitude will go too far into the realm of some form of relativism or subjectivism. In the case of the former, such people will treat all cultures or approaches as having equal merit or rights as any other irrespective of what egregious wrongs are being committed; as if there are no universal rights or ethics. Therefore, for example, the sentence of stoning a person to death for adultery should be considered relative to that context: who are 'we' to determine what is right and wrong. A position that should be untenable (and unpalatable) on face value to most people.
In the latter sense, that of subjectivism, which is an extension of relativism, we see people question whether there can even be 'right' and 'wrong'. These positions are as ill-advised as they are ill-informed. Such moral subjectivity can--and often does, in fact--lead to terrible cruelty and suffering going on unabated to the most vulnerable and marginalized of a society. Furthermore, they are positions that are capitalized upon by those who would hide such cruelty and suffering under nomenclature like 'relativism', 'subjectivity', or 'sovereignty'.
There is, however, a middle ground: that of pluralism.
To understand pluralism we must first recognize what 'relativism' is, and is not. Relativism in social sciences does not allow for obvious and egregious wrongs to be accepted, rather it is an observational stand point one takes in attempting to understand the attitude toward, and approach to, certain cultural practices and traditions. This is to say, for example, that an anthropologist will, when observing a culture, do his or her best to observe the norms and practices of a culture within that culture's own contexts; and, often, only for the purpose of clarity. As a corollary, if our anthropological observer insinuates his or her own cultural norms and practices--of, say, law or justice--onto their observations of another culture, then those observations are, by definition, corrupted, inaccurate, and--mot likely--worthless.
It is not, however, the case that our anthropologist must then leave that culture's practices as they are--granted how he or she would go about dealing with, say, human rights abuses (think: female genital mutilation) must be done in ways that are educational, meaningful (versus authoritarian or militaristic), and sustainable to that culture. That is to say, if that culture's narrative is to be changed the change must make sense to that culture--and this takes time, to say the least. Changes must also be, and be seen as, fair, reasonable, and balanced...certainly no easy task.
Take, for example, the issue of same sex marriage. By allowing groups with clear ideological or doctrinal agendas to frame the debate we have to accept that (a) there is a right and wrong (i.e. black and white) version of marriage, and that (b) we, the masses, must choose only between the options presented to us (and, often, are we really even given much of a choice?). This is done so that normalcy, dignity, and society is 'saved' from those who would 'attack our way of life'.
Again, note the underlying competitive model: choices are either 'right' or 'wrong'. There is also an implicit (if not explicit) hierarchy at work here, let alone an overly simplistic view of, in this case, human emotions (for what's really at the core here is who it is that one can properly--or naturally--'love').
However, if we view the species from a more humble perspective (because, let's be honest, those who view it from a black and white--or conservative--perspective see themselves as having all the answers. This is because they believe there are right and wrong answers, usually as stated in a religious doctrine or text) then we come to realize that 'our' perspective is not the only perspective; that is to say, 'our' view is not necessarily a complete one.
It is better then to see the world as a large pie-chart where, say, 1000 years ago only a few pieces of the pie were known (or even thought about); then, 500 years ago we added a few more pieces, but there were still many 'blank' spots in the overall pie dish, if you will. Today we can say that we've filled in more pieces than there were, say, 500 or 1000 thousand years ago (this isn't suggesting we're 'better' by the way); however, there are still blank spots even in our pie dish as anyone would expect when viewing a dynamic process.
Such a perspective allows for us to see practices and traditions as acceptable or non-acceptable. For example, perhaps 1000 years ago having a 12 year old bride was not only acceptable, but necessary relative to the conditions of the time. This should not be a surprise when we consider that the average life span of any individual was about 40-45 years. Furthermore, the sooner one had a larger family, the sooner one had labour and thus increased the likelihood of survival.
These may have been the circumstances then, but they are not the circumstances now (and, even if they are, this solution is not a viable one), so judgment upon them is irrelevant (but not without use). In fact, to judge then by now is to participate in the historical and logical fallacy of anachronism. The goal of history is to create a narrative that corresponds to evidence so as to best understand practices and behavior of the past; to understand the past, not to recreate it (thus the danger of nostalgia, or 'the good ole days' belief).
So, today, we should not see ourselves as better, smarter, or more ethical than those of the past, although we can certainly see life as 'better', but this is relative.
Advances in health-care, jurisprudence, society, and a myriad of other factors--obvious and not--have allowed us, for example, to have a life span that doubles that of our kin from 1000 years ago. Therefore, the pressure of survival does not apply to us today if, say, one wants a 12 year old bride. Furthermore, research into child development have illustrated to us that heaping on such responsibilities, both physical and mental, is, at best, counter-productive--not only to the child, but to society at-large. Finally, advances in technology have allowed longer growing seasons, and longer growing seasons in otherwise hostile terrain, greater agrarian yields, significant reductions in disease--to crops and to humans--among many other advances. So, the weight of survival--for most of the world (believe it or not)--is not as exigent as it once was. Therefore, the practices and traditions (and narratives) of the past do not suit the conditions of today.
All in all then, the need for (or even simply practice of) child brides is, literally, a thing of the past. So, if one observes such practices in another culture today--however relative to that culture--one certainly can (and should) determine said practices as being unsuitable to today, if not downright unacceptable.
The same situation can be applied to same-sex marriage. In this day and age one does not have to agree with two people of the same sex being 'married', but we do have to allow for it if we are to hold to our beliefs in the rights of others: live and let live, so the saying goes. Certainly a better position will be one where people understand that 'love knows no bounds', but we are in a state of changing the narrative (a paradigm shift) as we speak. Such an enlightened narrative is a thing to come...hopefully, that is.
Also, we need not accept the frame that, on the one hand, supports the dated notion that such a union is un-natural and/or un-holy; neither should we have to accept that 'we' are, by virtue of allowing such un-holy or un-natural unions, undermining the 'institution of marriage' or of the 'family'. To hold to such notions is to hold to a historical and ideologically bound narrative; that is to say: a stagnant one. In fact, if we do hold to either institutions as defined by such notions we are relegating ourselves to the past.
There isn't a 'correct' definition of marriage--although there may be acceptable and no-acceptable versions (same-sex does not fall into this category)--rather, there is a new addition to our pie-chart...this is, whether one wishes to accept it nor not, what we mean when we speak of progress.
We must understand that by accepting the frustration, instability, and murkiness of plurality we are accepting that (a) we don't know everything and (b) we can accept change without (c) destroying 'our' values by demeaning 'theirs'...in essence, when we add to the empty pieces in the pie dish we're acting both ethically, humanely, and accepting that change occurs...again, whether we like it or not.
This is the nature of the word 'dynamic'; a word that cannot abide by the static nature of dualism.
We also have to be on guard--as it were--for these circumstances in the literature of the past.
Just as the anthropologist we discussed observes a culture's practices in an honestly relative way, so to must we read the narratives of literature equally honestly and critically. Northrop Frye speaks to just this when, in The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, he notes that to read the Bible literally is to read it (a) out of context, and then (b) to misread it (and, thus, misunderstand its worth) as a whole.
The same is to be said of contemporary readings of any cosmogonic myths. We are mis-reading them if we read them as having something to say--specifically and literally--to today's sciences. This is a condition we see often in alternative medicine's language of 'ancient wisdom'.
Not only is this, then, a misreading, but it does a disservice to, on the one hand, the purpose of the texts to the audiences of the past (and how they read, understood, used, and made it meaningful), but also, on the other hand, to the advances, knowledge, and uses of today's sciences. In this latter sense, certainly ancient texts have both purpose and meaning, but that meaning is relegated to the realm of the metaphorical and, thus, meta-physical.
We read ancient texts and narratives literally at our peril and at the expense of the knowledge they contain when we read it literally. In essence, we diminish the authors and audience of the past, and, in turn, deny ourselves the pertinent meaning within their narratives.
No comments:
Post a Comment