Multicultural Nonsense
Tibor R. Machan
As an avid reader of Science News magazine I never miss anything offered
up by the editors. I often purchase a book they recommend and peruse the
letters of the editor routinely. (I’ve had several of my own published
over the years.)
In the April 12, 2008, issue a letter appears that puzzled me quite a bit,
both for its content and because it was published. Here is what it said:
“I feel that Rachel Ehrenberg was entirely too glib in ‘Digging that Maya
blue” (SN:3/1/08, p. 134). The description of an ancient Mayan religious
ritual as ‘plucking the hearts from humans and tossing the bodies into the
sacred cenote’ is disrespectful. I am sure that Science News would never
describe any contemporary religious ritual in this manner. Here is hoping
that the editors and writers adopt a more dispassionate eye.”
So now human sacrifices are supposed to be dealt with respectfully! Give
me a break. Next we will read from some multicultural fanatic that
slavery, female circumcision and other atrocities from the past, and
perhaps even the gassing of the Jews by the German authorities just a few
decades ago, need to be handled respectfully. Or perhaps just because the
Mayan atrocity was at the behest of a religious sect it deserves our
respect. Why? Can religions not manifest gross evil just as ideologies
often do?
Not all matters from the past can easily be evaluated, that is true.
Sometimes the context and circumstances are complicated and the behavior
being examined may not fit clearly within moral categories. But human
sacrifice? Come on, surely here we can say, with sufficient confidence,
that those folks back there did something utterly contemptible. If not,
then I suppose the multicultural thesis would imply that we must not pass
judgment on anything, including the practice of chattel slavery in the not
so far off past of the United States of America.
The irrationality of this viewpoint is obvious just from the fact that
advocates of the multicultural viewpoint endlessly moralize about those
who refuse to accept their position. Just consider the Science News letter
writer who freely chided the editors instead of regarding their stance,
well, an alternative cultural stance, one that freely condemns various
religious practices of the past. If these editors can be criticized for
what they did, so can the Mayans, otherwise what is being done is actually
insulting to the latter. Mayans and others in the past were human beings,
ever bit as we are, and various moral standards are applicable to
understanding how they conduct themselves, just as such standards apply to
the editors and writers of Science News.
The intellectually fascinating feature of multiculturalism is just how
incoherent it quickly becomes. If one fails to accept multiculturalism,
well then one is acting badly; but if one accepts multiculturalism, then
no one can be blamed for anything at all since from some, however obtuse,
cultural standpoint any conduct can be “justified.”
It would be far more enlightened to figure out some basic standards of
human morality and then apply them to any society and culture carefully.
The nihilism of refusing to judge is simply unavoidable to us--even that
refusal is a judgment and in need of rational support.
The multicultural stance exhibited by the Science News letter writer is
not the only one that has the problem of incoherence, of course. All
relativist positions face it, as do subjectivist ones. Implicit in all
such purportedly tolerant and nonpartisan ethical positions is an
intolerance of making moral judgments. Yet for some reason those who
advocate these doctrines do not seem to realize it or hope that others
won’t notice the problem.
I agree with one thing in the letter from Science News. Being glib can be
dangerous when it comes to judging people. But it is also understandable
that journalists would toy with glibness--after all they need to make
their copy a good read, not simply accurate and relevant.