From my personal experience I believe there's truth in this. I've also concluded that, though the rest of the world may organize itself as it pleases, I have a passionate devotion to the "contention" principles of my native culture. I have lived in "consensus" cultures, and whatever their virtues, they had the effect of giving me a profound appreciation for the values of straightforward speech and a standard not only of impersonal civility but of impersonal, lively, fractious, creative debate. I'm a contention kind of gal. I do not want to live out my days in a consensus culture. It frightens and disturbs me when our social institutions, e.g. schools, reject training in the civility and manners proper to a culture based on debate and competition, in favor of preaching specious and sentimental social relations, vilifying competition, and instilling the spirit of envy.
However, I used the qualifier "allegedly" because I'm not persuaded, despite my personal, limited experience, that this is necesarrily a Western vs. non-Western phenomenon. Maybe the straightforward, may-the-best-argument-prevail ethos is found in pockets across the globe. (After all, God knows, we have enough bullshit and evasive speech in this country to keep us all in shoveling trim for a long time to come.) And sometimes I suspect that "contention" virtues are not so much "Western" as anglospheric - as today, when I came across an illustrative anecdote. In this case the author, Wesley J. Smith, describes, re the euthanasia debate, a Dutchman purportedly motivated by process and consensus rather than truth and right. I have no idea if the individual cited is representative of anyone but himself, but this made my contention-loving flesh crawl:
[...]I referred to several studies on Dutch euthanasia revealing that about 1,000 patients who have not asked to be euthanized are killed by doctors each year. Though such killings are considered murder under Dutch law, I explained that those doctors who engage in "termination without request or consent" in the Netherlands are almost never prosecuted. Moreover, the very few who are prosecuted are usually found not guilty. And the exceedingly rare conviction, when it happens, never leads to criminal sanction, or even professional discipline against the offending doctor.When I make this point in debates with American euthanasia advocates, their response is usually to angrily accuse me of exaggerating, or else to excuse the conduct owing to the poor condition of the patients involved. But the Dutch advocate was not offended or upset. Rather, he calmly admitted that my point as unremarkable, stating, "Well, it is important that we have laws to tell us what constitutes good medical practice in this area. But, of course, these laws should not be enforced."
My jaw dropped. What's the point of passing laws if they're not going to be enforced?
To the Old European way of thinking, though, it apparently makes perfect sense. The guidelines don't exist to punish those who break them; rather, they're a vehicle for maintaining consensus and comity between those who support euthanasia and those who oppose it. Supporters have the satisfaction of knowing that euthanasia is available in many circumstances. Opponents have the satisfaction of knowing that legal restrictions limit the actual practice of euthanasia, at least to some degree. Hence, a controversial public policy that is an emotional flashpoint of the culture war in the United States is generally accepted with quiet equanimity by the people of the Netherlands — even though it has led to many thousands of Dutch patients being murdered without legal consequence.
This point of understanding crystallized for me as I pondered a private conversation I had with someone who had heard my presentation and who told me he didn't think I believe in "dialogue." I was taken aback. "How can you say that?" I asked. "I flew 6,000 miles to be here. I sat next to people with whom I profoundly disagree. I was cordial and collegial. I did not raise my voice. I engaged in no ad hominem. I backed up my assertions with evidence. Now it's up to the audience to decide whether they agree with me or not."
"But you do not believe in dialogue," he repeated testily. "You only care about what you believe."
We were clearly not on the same page about what it means to have a dialogue. To me, engaging in a political dialogue means participating civilly in the rough-and-tumble, the give-and-take, of political debate. The aim of dialogue isn't simply to exchange views, but also to persuade and, yes, prevail if agreement cannot otherwise be reached. What I gleaned from my non-American conversationalist is that to him, dialogue apparently means participating in the process of achieving a consensus that can somehow accommodate all points of view. Not only that, but the act of abiding by a consensus seems to be more important than whatever policy is finally implemented. My protagonist wasn't offended by my opinions but by my approach.
As a person-of-contention, the phrases that flitted through my head while reading this description varied from rather formless meditations verbalized as "sink of corruption", "moribund culture", and the like, to more coherent reflections along the lines of "damn I'd give up the struggle and go under if I had to swim through so high a social concentration of bland, bland bullshit in my day to day life". Makes me grateful even for the endless, passionate, American abortion debate.
And now, let us dialogue!
Addendum: Charles Murtaugh comments on Smith's article.
I'm with you 100% on that.
At risk of being seen as sexist -- well, I am sexist -- do you think contentious debate is a more masculine than feminine trait?
Posted by: Dean Esmay on February 25, 2003
The underlying factor that makes contention unavoidable is the assertion of a moral absolute. As long as someone asserts a moral absolute and someone else rejects it, there will be contention ranging from reasoned argument to mass violence. If there are no absolutes, then contention can be avoided.
Thing is, there are moral absolutes. They won't go away simply because we'd all like to get along. If it were otherwise, we could have told ourselves that Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were just going through rough patches and needed a little space. Or that Hitler was having a mid-life crisis and should be allowed to work it out.
Not too easy, eh?
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on February 25, 2003
I agree that open, dispassionate argument is generally the way to go. I've had many exchanges like the one you quote. However, I think that much of the cultural difference here is a matter of style. Not all consensus seekers are pure relativists; many of the ones I have met are basically moral people who have been taught conflicting values but have never been forced to confront the incompatibility of those values (or to confront anything else, for that matter). Sometimes it's possible to reason with such people, but it requires a different approach than works with people who are comfortable with argument.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 25, 2003
Dean - yes, I think you can make a case for a general sex difference here, but in my experience it's far more marked as a cultural difference. You sexist dog.
Francis and Jonathan - these questions interest me greatly. It's possibly not so much a matter of "moral relativism" as different ordering of moral priorities. Surely we all deal with minor issues over which we're willing to go along to get along. What's disturbing to me is how high up the moral hierarchy some people seem to have to go to find something that trumps the value of harmony and consensus. For me, the bar is set pretty low, and I can understand that others will set it higher. But it appalls me to see "let's just slide here, live and let live" applied to something as morally central as a debate over euthanasia. (Or shall I say "live and let die" in this case.)
Which leads me to bring up another observation (or prejudiced conclusion, some might think): the "consensus" approach is inarguably a good method for diffusing and avoiding blame. I could go on at vituperative length on that subject, but I'll just opine here that I think that scoundrels do much better in "consensus" groups, as it's much easier there to shift the debate from their own bad behavior to the violations of good manners committed by those ill-bred enough to confront and accuse them.
Posted by: Moira on February 25, 2003
I have noticed classroom teachers with a political agenda trying this same trick. Make some vague statements that are hard to get people to disagree with, then use that to make a sweeping indictment of -- multinational corporations, business deregulation, whatever.
Posted by: Dean Esmay on February 25, 2003
Moira,
You frame the question well. But who knows why some people set the bar at a different metaphorical height than other people (even, sometimes, their siblings) do.
I agree with your "prejudiced conclusion," which I think is an excellent empirical/utilitarian argument for moral standards.
I don't think there's any downside to teaching moral standards and to training people (i.e., one's children) how to approach these questions. At a minimum, it's probably a good idea to emphasize from an early age that they should do what they know to be right even if everyone around them disagrees.
A final idea: The rhetoric of democracy makes it easier for scoundrels to manipulate consensus processes among politically ignorant people.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 26, 2003
Yeah, about eight years ago, I had that "social harmony, saving face, consensus" idea about my wife-to-be. She's from Taiwan. Yowsa, was I wrong.
Should have known, though. She's a philosopher!
Posted by: David on February 26, 2003
I was on a jury several years ago. Every time people would start getting into a good debate, the forewoman would say something like, "now, everyone has a right to their own opinion."
Seems to me that there are two roots to this kind of thinking (1) cultural relativism, which reduces all truths to a matter of preference, and (2) simple cowardice.
Posted by: David Foster on March 01, 2003
David Foster,
I had an experience with a different kind of relativist on a jury. The defendant admitted to beating his girlfriend with a metal broomstick, but claimed he did it in self-defense. He was not believable. However, one of the other jurors initially thought we shouldn't convict. She said that in her country of origin such domestic violence was not considered serious enough to warrant prosecution. I suppose she would fall into your "cultural relativism" category.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 01, 2003