33 Analysis of Relativism

Difficulties about relativism

In this section I will deal with the most serious difficulties that relativistic conceptions have come up against – and still come up against. These difficulties are immediately highlighted by the criticisms made by absolutist adversaries. I will limit my analysis, as I have already said, to the area of analytical philosophy.

The most radical criticism, and historically the most salient, that has been made of relativism and still continues to be made, even though it has several times proved to be a blunt weapon, is that it is self-refuting¹⁵

It is not possible here, in the space of this essay, to give a detailed account of the innumerable versions in which this argument has been developed. The variety of these versions is enhanced on account of the modifications that relativists have adopted to their conceptions in response to the various attempts at refutation¹⁶. Moreover, relativistic conceptions have not presented themselves as a homogeneous block. Nevertheless, the argument has to be briefly considered, because of a rather serious difficulty for relativism that it brings to light. This becomes clear from the discussion that develops between relativists and their critics, on the subject of these accusations of inconsistency and/or of contradiction. It is a difficulty that perhaps constitutes the main philosophical source of all the criticisms, and that in my opinion is not satisfactorily resolved by the standard strategies that the relativists bring into play in response to the attempts at refutation.

For my present purposes it is sufficient to mention the fundamental structure of the argument¹⁷, which simply copies that of the liar paradox. The absolutist conceptions point out that, when the relativist expresses his fundamental conviction regarding the necessary contextual dependence of criteria and beliefs, this affirmation can be interpreted in two ways: either it is true in all contexts, in which case the relativist’s assertion is self-refuting; or it is only true in a relative way, and therefore it would be false from the point of view of the absolutist, and consequently the relativist would have no ground on which to attack absolutism.

In working out their strategies for responding to the various versions of this argument, the relativists have lingered on both horns of the dilemma, trying to find in a positive sense, within one or the other of the two alternatives, ways out of the impasse.

A first type of solution takes the second alternative seriously, attending to the fact that the relativist, consistently with the premises of his argument, should consider his thesis as internal to the conceptual scheme adopted by those who share it or to the cultural context of which it is a part. Accordingly it is itself a thesis that is also relative to that framework. In this sense, we would be talking about second order relativism¹⁸. Such relativism defends a thesis that is self-referential but not self-refuting: a thesis that would have nothing to oppose to the arguments of the absolutist, except the fact of constituting a defining proposal, alternative to that of the absolutist. The proposal applies to a whole series of key notions (knowledge, truth, epistemic criterion, etcetera), and it is considered to be true or at least rationally acceptable within a determined context¹⁹.

The second type of solution attends to the first alternative, but not, obviously, in the sense of reaffirming the absolute truth of the thesis on relativity, which once again would come up against the accusation of being a self-refuting affirmation. Rather, it does so in the sense of trying to identify, while remaining within a relativistic outlook, some affirmations that would be, in some sense, true in all contexts. In short, from this point of view, it would be a matter of constructing a weaker version of relativism that recognizes the need to incorporate some elements of an absolutist character in relativistic conceptions, and thus avoids the accusation of self-contradiction.

There are a great number of conceptions that have tried to break away from the most radical forms of relativism, to work out more moderate versions of it. But the biggest problem, for anyone attempting to trace out a map of them, is that such conceptions have done it in the most diverse ways, making reference each time to a disparate series of elements (of a structural, logical, anthropological, biological, et cetera, character) to be considered in some sense as absolute, or at any rate not relative.

It is obvious that here I cannot examine all these variations. These attempts, nevertheless, are extremely important for me, because they endeavour to face a real and profound philosophical difficulty about relativism, far beyond those of a logical character. It is a difficulty that the first type of solution fails to resolve, precisely because it chooses to shut itself up in a quietistic manner, and sometimes also in a sectarian manner²⁰, inside its own conceptual scheme (in the case of different schemes present in the same culture) or inside its own culture, seen as a kind of unscratchable monolith²¹. This type of solution never tries to defend its own positions on the outside and to insert criteria of evaluation that would allow comparative judgements.

It should instead be possible, for a relativistic conception to defend its positions beyond its own boundaries and to find new followers. Thus it could dispose of a terrain that is —in some sense— neutral. Then it would be able to express its theses in a language that can then be comprehensible in —and translatable into— the various cultural contexts and the various conceptual scenarios in which this thesis can get a hearing²². In relation to this, one would also like it to be possible, for the relativist too, to express, in ways and forms to be determined, judgments on what is right or wrong from the ethical point of view, at least in relation to behaviours of people belonging to different cultures than our own, or at any rate having different conceptions than our own. It should also be possible to pass judgements in terms of greater or lesser explanatory correctness, if one really does not want to use the word truth, as concerns conceptual schemes, theories and visions of the world different than our own. And one would like to be able to do this, even limiting oneself to some fundamental points, without undermining the fundamental premises of a picture that would substantially be relativistic.

I am personally convinced that the moderate versions do well to highlight the seriousness of this problem, and also to list a series of elements that it is objectively difficult to consider as radically relative to specific contexts. My opinion, nevertheless, is that if these elements were identified as real absolutes, then the relativistic conceptions would fatally turn into absolutist conceptions and nothing more. They would thus lose the consistency, the explanatory force, and I would also say the provocative vivacity of the original formulations. They degenerate into what is — sometimes— a sort of confused mixture in which relativistic affirmations would end up sounding banal and obvious.

I believe, however, that fortunately there is an alternative way to consider these elements assumed to be absolutes while remaining within a relativistic position, which I will try to show in the next section. For the moment it is appropriate to start from examination of these elements as they are configured by the moderate versions of relativism. To simplify a picture that is extremely complex, I will try very briefly to isolate three types of characteristics that according to the moderate relativistic theories constitute true universals. These amount to a sort of common core²³ made up of elements that we have to suppose to be shared by all schemes or all cultures²⁴. It is a common core, we must be careful to specify, that is then combined in various ways with differences, even very big ones, linked to the reference contexts.

The first characteristic concerns elements that we could call structural, because they do not concern contents, but on the contrary the principles, the forms and the criteria of reasoning. Many scholars have striven to isolate these elements, in different ways and forms, making reference each time, alternatively or cumulatively, to the fields of formal logic, theories of truth and theories of rationality. A particularly perspicuous way to express this moderate form of relativism is to say that there are some universal principles that represent a core conception of rationality, a sort of minimal theory of universal rationality (O’Grady, 2002, pp. 128, 140). They comprise at least the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of consistency between beliefs (and therefore of the search for inferential connections between them), and the principle of the search for proof or evidence (of whatever type they may be) to support their own beliefs (O’Grady, 2002, pp. 140-142). Others add further aspects to the picture like, for instance, “the use of theories in the explanation, prediction and control of events” (Horton, 1982, pp. 256-257).

The second characteristic concerns some ontological aspects, and hence some aspects of the world, as we represent it to ourselves. The controlled versions maintain that this “relationship with the world” necessarily implies some stable elements of the objects that make it up, without which it would be totally impossible to interact with – and to get our bearings on – the world itself. It implies, for instance, that objects are persistent and recurrent, of different types and of different kinds (Hampshire, 1960, pp. 15-18); it also implies that the objects most familiar to us are solid, lasting, of average size, connected in a chance fashion, and spatially identifiable, human beings included²⁵.

The third characteristic concerns some bio-anthropological aspects that the moderate versions affirm to be common to all human beings, to whatever community they belong. From this point of view it is stressed that human beings share the same biological make up (Baghramian, 2004, p. 262), and more specifically share elements of a genetic, biological and psychological character, which help to trace out their common animality (Baghramian, 2004, p. 267). These elements concern the phenomenon of mortality, experiences of pleasure and pain, the ability to love and to hate, etc. (Baghramian, 2004, p. 288), phenomena that, I will add, can also very well constitute the naturalistic basis of ethics. From a strictly epistemological point of view, however, there is a preference to highlight the fact that at all historical and geographical latitudes, human beings have the same cerebral organs and the same sense organs and manifest substantial uniformity as regards the working of these same organs. This would constitute a rather strong constraint against excessive proliferation of very different beliefs²⁶. An important feature of this uniformity in our working organisms, which some particularly stress²⁷, is that there seems to be a sort of innate sense of comparative similarity, probably acquired on an evolutionary base, without which we could not learn any type of language or develop processes of induction and prediction.

An alternative solution to the difficulties:

frameworks and environment

It is not possible here, if only for reasons of space, to enter into the merit of these —presumed— logical, ontological and bio-anthropological universals, in order to verify whether they really are such. Personally I doubt that some of them are, even assuming that one start from the perspective of those people that recognize them as such (one can consider, for instance, the element of the use of theories in explanation…). But that is not the important point to stress. For the fact is that it is not at all clear, in many of the authors that maintain moderate relativistic positions or in-between positions, whether they hold these elements to be necessarily absolute and universal elements, with objective value, or consider them as elements within schemes or cultures but contingently common to them all. If first hypothesis holds good, then the difference between absolutism and relativism would collapse. We would be faced with forms of disguised absolutism. Let us remember that a fundamental assumption, making it possible to characterize a position as relativistic, is that one cannot make any type of affirmation that is wholly un-contextual. Saying the same thing with the words of the constructivists, it is not possible to get outside one’s own schemes, and to speak about the world independently of a scheme of description (Goodman, 1988, pp. 3-8).

The alternative hypothesis is that these elements are internal to some reference context. On that hypothesis it would still be possible to label these positions as relativistic, but it would be necessary to clarify better the nature and the scope of these common elements. There is more promising position available, that rigorously remains inside relativistic coordinates, and that enables one to produce a sketch of an anti-absolutist explanation of the common presence of these elements. They are, after all, elements whose presence it seems to be impossible to deny.

The position that I am about to present has for the moment an absolutely embryonic form, but it is one which I believe to be worth developing further. It seeks to satisfy two demands: i) The first demand is to explain that the elements shared by all schemes have an internal character, that is the character of materials that have to be interpreted in the light of some reference picture, of a part of these elements shared by all schemes. ii) The second demand is that one clarify in what sense it is possible to speak, in a relativistic picture, of a reality which is —in some sense— objective, serving as a common basis for all schemes.

The first demand is satisfied by postulating a distinction between single schemes or cultures on one side and long-term background frameworks on the other. This is a distinction that seems very important to me, but which has not yet been sufficiently echoed in relativistic conceptions²⁸. Single schemes and specific cultures are the ordinary reference contexts for specifically local and in a sense idiosyncratic beliefs (those that, for instance, help to determine ethical conceptions -even competing ones- prevailing in a certain cultural context). As these beliefs or convictions become more and more general and shared in more than one community (for instance, those relating to a certain liberal conception of the human person, or of democracy, those relating to some very general ethical principles, such as prohibition of torture, or to the recognition of some fundamental human rights, et cetera), the schemes and the local cultures progressively tend to lean on broader conceptual pictures (frameworks). These frameworks can belong to several schemes and cultures. A broader framework of this kind, for instance, is represented by what can conventionally be defined as western culture, which certainly encompasses a very big variety of schemes or more specific cultures, but also has some common coordinates. Subsequently the frameworks tend to broaden, to the extent that they encompass in the extreme case, all humanity or, one might also say, the history of civilized man. This is so in cases in which reference is made to the demands and characteristics that we know to be most stable and most fundamental in human beings, which are the ones characterized above, improperly, as logical universals and as bio-anthropological universals.

It should be clarified that, postulating the existence of these frameworks, we have not foregone any of the essential aspects of relativism. The elements mentioned above do not belong to a sort of reality in itself, the outfit of a metaphysically structured human nature which we simply take stock of. They are always the result of an interpretative and selective action of ours on the world, which is wholly unaware²⁹ as regards the most stable and fundamental elements. For these are the fruit of the categories that are incorporated in learning our first language; and our language, starting from ordinary language, is never neutral. It always incorporates theories³⁰ whose common presuppositions (certain standardized ways of configuring the furniture of the world, for example in the terms of objects of average size, manageable, et cetera) also depend on components of our nervous system. They are transmitted in an evolutionary way (and have been preserved because they have been successful), and are suitable through innatism for representing the world in the way which is most appropriate to our needs³¹.

These frameworks are always in the background of our schemes and our local cultures, often in a wholly unacknowledged way. One must explain this using the following analogy. To adopt a scheme or share a culture is like selecting an icon in our computer, and thereby working on a specific program, but on a hard disk on which there are many other programs, and above all on which there is a single operating system.

The relationship between schemes and frameworks is not static, but dynamic, and it permits a whole series of operations, for instance criticism of our own and other people’s schemes and our own and other people’s cultures, which are not available for the radical relativist. The fact is that the contents of the single schemes or the single cultures can be examined and criticized by having recourse to elements taken from the broadest frameworks. One can think about the background ideas of person and democracy present in a framework, in that they are used as elements for critically examining the way in which the single schemes or single cultures are concretely used. It is a holistic process, for the understanding of which (but it is only a suggestion) the model of imperfect reflective equilibrium³² could be very useful.

The second demand that we would need to safeguard concerns the possibility of maintaining the idea of a reality that is in some sense objective within a rigorously relativistic context. This becomes possible by developing another distinction that I consider as important as the previous one, between environment and world³³. The first of the two terms refers to what can be considered for all human beings as the common source of sensory inputs and the common reference point of non verbal transactions and interactions. According to this first meaning it is correct to say, even for a relativist, that an environment only exists in a pre-linguistic sense (and therefore is logically prior to every type of interpretation).

The second term refers to the world as an object of linguistic and/or theoretical representation. According to this first meaning it is correct to say, from a relativistic and constructivist point of view, that several worlds exist, and more exactly as many versions of the world as there prove to be after our conceptual schemes begin to work³⁴.

It is important to notice that through this type of distinction relativistic conceptions can recover an acceptable, though minimal³⁵, sense of realism, which can be characterised as practical³⁶ or pragmatic³⁷ realism.

I would have liked, at this point, to develop a last part, which would have concerned the possible uses and application s of relativistic theses —seen in a sympathetic way— in the sphere of legal and political philosophy. Unfortunately there is not time to do this. In any case, a project of the kind would have at least to touch on the points of the relativistic ethical justification of legal positivism, the relationship between relativism and democracy, and the particularism of human rights³⁸, if they are interpreted in a relativistic key.