Present culture wars in Western societies, with
shouting matches between nationalists and cosmopolitans, ‘elites’ and
‘commoners’ or ‘grass roots’, highly and low-educated, free traders and
protectionists, are due, in large part, I think, to an unwillingness and inability
to engage in uttering and absorbing constructive criticism. At the same time
there is an urge towards expression and self-assertion. Together, they have
disastrous effects of polarization, with mutual indifference, or intolerance
and escalation of negative conflict.
Conflict can be creative but that demands the effort
and ability to engage in giving and accepting, appreciating, constructive
criticism, based on openness and curiosity, aimed at mutual understanding.
Those may be based on Christian virtues of faith in the positive potential of
people, hope of its realization, and love for the give and take of
relationships. It may also be based on traditional, cardinal values of
reflection, courage, moderation and justice. We seem to have lost all of those,
somehow.
What is happening?
First, young generations, not having suffered the
horrors of war, racism and nationalism, have grown up in a safe, protective environment,
robbing themselves of the need to deal with hardship that builds strength and
resilience.
This has fed risk avoidance, in an obsession with
safety and control. That has produced excessive control mechanisms in many
realms of work, which stifle professional initiative, kill intrinsic motivation
of work, and narrow room for improvisation and for catering to variety of taste
and circumstance.
Second, postmodern philosophy has generated, mostly as
a result of misunderstanding, an excessive, perverse relativism, according to
which any view is as good as any other. Opinions are as good as arguments, and
everyone has a right to his or her own. There is no common ground for debate,
and criticism is seen as intolerant, offensive, power play.
The misunderstanding is this. I accept relativism in
the form of renouncing absolute objectivity and truth, accepting that one’s
views, and even observations, are biased by forms of thought, based on one’s
biological and cultural inheritance, and formed along one’s individual path of
life. However, the resulting difference
in ideas and views, in what earlier in the blog I called ‘cognitive distance’,
form a reason not for abandoning debate, but, on the contrary, for engaging in
it. Precisely because our views are biased, the only chance we have at
correcting them lies in looking at other, conflicting views. As I argued at
several places in this blog, one needs opposition from others to achieve
freedom from one’s prejudices and errors.
In contrast with this, an ethic has arisen where
respect is seen as avoiding criticism, rather than valuing opposition. People
congregate with whom they agree, cuddling their conformity.
Third, there is a romantic urge for individual self-expression,
authenticity. In combination with unwillingness and inability to voice and
absorb criticism constructively, this becomes a noisy celebration of narcissism.
At some schools, students are bedded in safety, in a
pact of mutual non-aggression. Trust is seen as softness, conflict avoidance. Instead,
students should be educated to voice and absorb constructive criticism. It is precisely
because there is trust that one can tell each other ‘the truth’. Returning to
the cardinal virtues: one should learn to listen and reflect on what is said,
what to say, and how to say it. Have the courage to take the risk of giving and
evoking criticism. To be moderate and modest in one’s claims, and just in
judgement.
This issue is connected with the notion of cognitive
distance. To recall: cognition here is a wide notion, including knowledge as
well as moral views concerning the conduct of relationships. Distance is
bothersome, makes collaboration difficult, but also yields the potential for
learning. Ability to cross cognitive distance enhances learning by interaction.
It is good for society as well as the individual.
One can make a distinction between distance in
substantive knowledge and moral/ relational distance. The latter is more
difficult to cross than the former. Constructive conflict is best served by
reducing moral distance, in order to better cross distance in knowledge. Dealing
with each other while disagreeing.
No comments:
Post a Comment