18 November 2006
Multiculturalism vs. Open Minds
Is it possible to preserve room for many cultural backgrounds, maintaining an open mind to different philosophies, and still hold to principles that determine one’s choices in life? Does the former necessarily mean relativism, granting equal validity to any set of moral guidelines? Or is it possible truly to allow each individual or group of individuals to adopt a set of values that they determine to be the most utilitarian for them while holding firmly to one’s own set of principles.
If a person or society has a system of values that includes insistence on its universality, it is a prescription for tyranny and world conquest. This is the dark side of globalization; and what Harvey Mansfield seems to advocate in his OpEd piece in the November 16, 2006, Wall Street Journal. A Rawlsian framing of values, like that in the previous paragraph, can reach different conclusions in different cultures. Conceding this possibility does not require accepting different value systems if one chooses to reside in any particular cultural milieu.
Mansfield accuses Harvard’s faculty of positing cultural determinism, from which an educated mind cannot escape; it can only learn how best to argue in the culture’s defense. Isn’t it Mansfield, rather, who can be criticized for demanding the narrowing of Harvard minds to Western values and principles as a consequence of their voluntarily selecting that institution for learning and research?
Is it possible to preserve room for many cultural backgrounds, maintaining an open mind to different philosophies, and still hold to principles that determine one’s choices in life? Does the former necessarily mean relativism, granting equal validity to any set of moral guidelines? Or is it possible truly to allow each individual or group of individuals to adopt a set of values that they determine to be the most utilitarian for them while holding firmly to one’s own set of principles.
If a person or society has a system of values that includes insistence on its universality, it is a prescription for tyranny and world conquest. This is the dark side of globalization; and what Harvey Mansfield seems to advocate in his OpEd piece in the November 16, 2006, Wall Street Journal. A Rawlsian framing of values, like that in the previous paragraph, can reach different conclusions in different cultures. Conceding this possibility does not require accepting different value systems if one chooses to reside in any particular cultural milieu.
Mansfield accuses Harvard’s faculty of positing cultural determinism, from which an educated mind cannot escape; it can only learn how best to argue in the culture’s defense. Isn’t it Mansfield, rather, who can be criticized for demanding the narrowing of Harvard minds to Western values and principles as a consequence of their voluntarily selecting that institution for learning and research?
Comments:
Post a Comment
