RELATIVISM

There is nothing permanent except change, said ancient Greek Philosopher Heraclites. According to him, “You cannot step twice into the same river”. From birth to death we keep changing. Our bodies grow and mature and wither away as we become old. Our minds learn new things every day. Our emotions keep changing. Fashions come and go. All societies keep evolving. What is moral in one is immoral in another. What is wrong today is right tomorrow.

We are all familiar with the expression ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. The Western world regards stick-like women as beautiful. Hence you see such anorexic models walking the ramp at fashion shows, showcasing those outrageously ‘unwearable’ dresses. On the contrary, they would be regarded as victims of an incurable disease like AIDS or TB by the African masses, whose concept of female beauty resides in plumpness. Again, most disagreements conclude with the statement: ‘that’s true for you but not for me.’ This subjectivism in values, known as relativism, extends to all areas of human experience like beliefs, knowledge, morals and taste.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual.  This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are subjective. The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by the ancient philosopher Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you. Thus, however I see things, that is actually true - for me. If you see things differently, then that is true - for you. There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things”. For him, "man is the measure of all things".

Let me illustrate the concept of ‘relativism’ in some areas of human behavior. The first type we consider is metaphysical relativism: the position that all assumptions and beliefs about God, creation, life after death, hell, heaven etc are subjective. Some people believe in God, while others do not. There are still others, who start out as believers, but end up as atheists. Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher who lived in the nineteenth century and who is considered the forerunner of Existentialism, was such a person. Son of a pastor, he was raised as a devout Christian and was known as “the little Jesus” by his schoolmates. But by his middle twenties, he had become an atheist. For him God is dead; He plays no vital role in our culture. There is a section in his writings describing the antics of a madman who announces the death of God.

On a bright morning, the madman lighted a lantern and ran to the marketplace calling out unceasingly, “I seek God! I seek God!” People all around were laughing at him. Suddenly he jumped into their midst. “Where is God gone?” he called out. “I mean to tell you, we have killed him, - you and I. We are all his murderers. Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? – for even gods putrefy. God is dead; He remains dead. And we have killed him”. Then he threw his lantern to the ground and it broke in pieces and was extinguished. Later the madman made his way into different churches and there he intoned his Requiem aeternam deo (May God rest in peace!). When called to account, he replied, “What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?”

The Nietzschean contention is encapsulated in a phrase attributed to one of Dostoyevsky’s characters: “If God is dead, all things are permitted.” This leads us to the next type of relativism: moral relativism, the position that moral values change from time to time, place to place and culture to culture.

Back in the days when I was working at the University of Venda in South Africa, we lecturers would often attend national and international education conferences where we would present academic papers and discuss ‘weighty’ educational issues. They were also occasions to visit (at University’s expense) other parts of the country and experience different cultural traits and practices. One such conference was held at the University of Zululand, not far from Durban. On the final day the ‘bigwigs’ – Vice Chancellor (VC), Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) and the Registrar Academic (RA) - would be present at the concluding meeting where they would thank us for gracing their University and we would thank them for their wonderful hospitality. As we waited for the dignitaries to arrive, I noticed that the chairs on the stage were arranged in a special manner: one big one followed by four smaller ones, another big one followed by three smaller ones and a third big one followed by five smaller ones. Shortly the Vice Chancellor entered, followed by four women. The elderly looking matron sat next to him; next to her sat a middle aged woman, next a young woman and lastly someone who was just out of her teens. A similar situation took place regarding the DVC and Registrar Academic. Not used to the local customs, I asked a Zulu colleague who all these women were. She told me that the four women next to the VC were his wives sitting in order of their status. Ditto for the DVC and the RA. My eyes popped out in amazement. Polygamy is common in Africa, but it was the first time I saw an official approval of the same at the highest academic circle. After this, cultural entertainment by topless damsels and young men clad in cowhide loincloth was less shocking for someone brought up in strict monogamous practices. I suppose Pope John Paul II too wasn’t shocked as he was welcomed by bare-breasted maidens ululating and dancing in joy when he landed at Durban on one of his African safaris. My Catholic Zulu colleague told me that if the good white nuns insisted on covering up, the girls would refuse to attend catechism classes. Both the Western and the Eastern world regard female breasts as erotic and hence cover them; for the Zulus and their cousins the Swazis, female breasts are meant only for nurturing babies. The part that they consider erotic is the thigh, a fact officially stated in the Swaziland parliament a few years ago. That brings us to aesthetic relativism, the view that beauty and taste are subjective.

Recently, a very close relative came home to visit in the late afternoon. Since it happened to be the ‘happy hour’, I decided to indulge in a bit of civilized social drinking. I brought out an unopened bottle of Remy Martin from a secret location in my house where I keep the ‘sophisticated’ stuff. Knowing my weakness for cognac, my son-in-law had packed it along with the rest of the knickknacks when my wife and I returned from US after being there for the birth of our second grand-daughter. It was on a flight from Johannesburg to Bombay that I first developed a taste for cognac. The bar had run out of brandy and the kind air hostess offered me Remy Martin. I still remember her name: Erika Venter (pronounced Fenter in Afrikaans, the language spoken by most whites in South Africa). Unlike the grumpy Air India air hostesses, who metamorphose into obnoxious school matrons during flight, the South Africans offer service with a smile. Anyway, back to the story.

A couple of short-stemmed glasses were brought out and I, with the studied dignity worthy of the cognac, ceremoniously poured the expensive stuff and put an ice cube in each glass. The connoisseur would hold the glass in his palm and as the warmth from the hand gently melted the ice, he would lightly swirl the drink, bring it close to his face to breath in its divine aroma and then take a small sip to savor its smooth flavor. Not my close relative. He took the glass, looked at it rather quizzically, drained it in one gulp, smacked his lips as though he had drunk some Ayurvedic concoction, and wait for it, requested for some whisky or brandy instead, if available! To add insult to injury, he then asked for some pickle to go with the cognac he just gulped down!

It took great effort on my part to suppress the first reaction that flashed across my mind: “Pearls before a swine”. I then went to the cupboard where I keep the local stuff like homebrewed ‘cashew fenny’ that my sister sent me from Goa. I also do not throw away empty Johnny Walker bottles, but fill them with the local brands. The unsophisticated cannot tell the difference between whiskey and brandy, let alone distinguish between single malt and double malt (blended). His face lit up at the sight of the half empty “Johnny Walker” bottle that I placed before him. Needless to say, he thoroughly enjoyed the stuff. This was evident from the ear-to-ear grin as he thanked me profusely while leaving.

So, was Nietzsche right when he said: “You have your way; I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist”? Well, Plato does not agree. His first objection to relativism is that there is no distinction between truth and falsity; for if each individual is really the "measure" of what is, then everyone would be infallible, which is absurd. His other main objection is that relativism is self-refuting. If Protagoras is right, then whatever a person thinks is true, is true. But in that case, Protagoras must concede that those who think relativism is false are correct. So if Protagorean relativism is true, it must also be false. Get it, you armchair philosophers?