• home
• writing
• editing
• Mud
• about
• photo gallery
• the bloggery
• the vineyard
• contact

Return to Highlights

Absolutely Relative

June 19, 2007

Most religions, political philosophies, and ideologies come in two distinctly different varieties: absolutist and relativist. The absolutist thinks the world is not safe (or saved) until everyone believes what s/he believes. The relativist usually has a general idea of "good" in mind but allows that there are various ways to achieve it and that no single religion or ideology will suit all persons or all peoples or all eras. Absolutists are often too impatient to let the power of their own example do the converting: if in power, they'll resort to force; if not, they'll make generous use of browbeating, guilt-tripping, shunning, and other tactics that either silence dissenters or drive them out of the vicinity. Relativism is popular with people out of power, and with good reason: it gives them moral leverage when those in power try to forcibly convert them.

Despite the great divergence in the letter of their various laws, absolutist Christians, absolutist Muslims, absolutist communists, absolutist capitalists, absolutist environmentalists, absolutist feminists et al. have certain things in common with each other. Likewise, relativist Christians, relativist Muslims, relativist communists, relativist capitalists, relativist environmentalists, relativist feminists et al. have certain things in common with each other, and certain significant differences from the absolutist proponents of their own religion or ideology.

We're getting way too hung up on the god thing. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" does make a good foundation for absolutism, but plenty of believers go about doing what they believe is God's work in the world, and stuffing their religion down other people's throats isn't part of it. At the same time, humans manage to perpetrate all kinds of oppression, small-scale and large-, without being told to do so by any god.

And that's the important point: gods and theories tend to tell us what we want or are willing to hear, or what we're capable of hearing. Hence the myriad interpretations that get laid on the same point of doctrine. And hence someone who wants to cram his/her beliefs down other people's throats can do it in the name of Christianity, Islam, atheism, Marxism, Freudianism, or any other theory you can come up with.

So why do some people want to cram their beliefs down your throat while others can live by "Live and let live"? Now that's an interesting, and demanding, question. To answer it one might start with a cross-cultural or cross-historical study: What conditions combine to make a people practice live-and-let-live, among themselves and with their neighbors? What conditions tend to produce internal oppression or outward aggression? While pursuing this study one would be wise to "inquire within" as well: When am I moved to shout someone down or shut them up, or to support leaders who promise to do similarly?

Most ideologies, I think, come in both varieties. What are the exceptions? So far I haven't been able to imagine the relativistic version of any ideology, like Nazism, that is based on the superiority of one people over others, especially when that superiority is rooted in immutable characteristics and extermination of the inferiors is seen as an option. And I can't really imagine a democracy that can be forced down anyone's throat, despite the claims to the contrary of many a U.S. government: the outward trappings of democracy, like elections and representative institutions, do not alone a democracy make.

Home - Writing - Editing - About Susanna - Bloggery - Articles - Poems - Contact

Copyright © Susanna J. Sturgis. All rights reserved.
web site design and CMI by goffgrafix.com of Martha's Vineyard