On Relativism

Relativism is a philosophical view that says all opinions are equal. (You might as well call them "opinions" if they're all equal, rather than arguments or positions. Because you can't dispute opinions.)

Relativism is closely entangled with our contemporary consumerist version of capitalism. Each of us is encouraged to be an "individual" with certain beliefs, tastes, or desires different from everyone else's. That's "just the way we are" or "just what we're into." I'm Jewish, you're Hindu. I like Lebron James, you like Kobe Bryant. I like pie, you like pi.

This leads to a bit of a paradox. Can we call relativism a philosophical view at all? After all, philosophy in the usual sense depends on arguing which view is more valid. And here all views are equally valid. So if we are philosophers, we can't really characterize relativism as one among many competing philosophical positions, because it rejects this framework entirely. And if we are relativists, we wouldn't want to characterize it as one among many competing philosophical positions, because applying our relativism we would consider all of these "positions" to be mere opinions, tastes, turn-ons, etc. rather than mutually exclusive arguments.

In most areas of philosophy, it is fairly easy to dispense with relativism. In ontology (the study of being, what is, including physics), we might admit that we have imperfect knowledge of what kind of stuff the universe is made out of, but we would defend one theory against another based on our best knowledge & best reasoning, supposing that there is something true or valid, whether or not we are actually capable of accessing it. In ethics, we might admit that there are many ways to live one's life, perhaps even many good ones, but we commit ourselves to one in particular and therefore choose against certain others. Aesthetics is special because, as Immanuel Kant said, it is an area in which we talk as if we are speaking of objective truths when we are actually speaking of subjective truths. Have you ever argued with your roommate about whether Band X is better than Band Y? Is one of you right or wrong?

This is an incredibly difficult question. A lot of people think that the humanities is the domain of completely arbitrary arguments, unlike the sciences where one appeals to evidence. But this is not true. You still argue and produce evidence in the humanities, and while it is difficult to say conclusively that an argument is "right," it is not difficult to say conclusively that an argument is wrong. Shakespeare did not write Hamlet as an allegory for Kobe's struggle with the legacy of Michael Jordan, or as an advertisement for pie. Those are stupid and wrong theories about Shakespeare, because you will never find the evidence to prove them. Yet, what evidence do we appeal to when arguing aesthetics? Whether or not someone likes something? It's tricky.

Some of you raised a similar question last week. Are all aesthetic theories equally valid? Are they mutually exclusive? It seems to me that some combine well and some are quite opposite. I'm going to stake out an intermediate position for the time being, by sticking with Kant. Aesthetic theories propose that they are valid and that alternate or opposing theories are invalid. And you can certainly misunderstand them, which makes you wrong. But from a strict philosophical standpoint, it is difficult to contend that an aesthetic theory itself could be wrong.

On the other hand, when you combine aesthetics with something else, then you're out of the relativist jam. Think of the relationship between aesthetics and ontology in Plato (art is a lie, a distortion of reality) or between aesthetics and ethics in Austen (reading good books will help you lead a good life, reading bad books will make it harder for you to lead a good life) or between aesthetics and politics in Lenin (art that fosters the workers' revolution is good, art that hinders it is bad). So if we attach aesthetics to any other domain, then it does become arguable, and there is right and wrong, good and bad. But aesthetics per se (in and of itself) seems to entail relativism, which is why most people with another theoretical axe to grind reject aesthetics per se or "art for art's sake." What would Lenin say to the moderate relativism of Kant (where art alone is relative, but ethics and ontology, etc. are not)? Obviously he would say that even Kant's aesthetic theory is a product of middle class ideology, capitalism, etc. He would explain aesthetics by taking it out of the aesthetic domain... he would see the insistence on aesthetics as a separate category (like Plato would for other reasons) to be a "false consciousness" or manipulative lie.

There's another way to get out of the relativist jam when it comes to aesthetics, which is to ignore the broader philosophical framework, and treat aesthetic judgments like ethical commitments. Remember, Kant says we can't help but do this. In other words, you think Brittney Spears is teh awesomest, OMG!!! and I think Radiohead is teh awesomest, OMG!!! I say you're wrong. You say I'm wrong. OK, so we have different tastes, but then why don't you have my same taste? If you're not wrong and I'm not right, then why don't I just switch my preference to Y? I won't... because I'm not being a relativist when I make this judgment, when I choose this commitment... I really think Band X is better than Band Y. Otherwise, why the hell am I listening to it?

In summary, I point you to this short clip from the 1998 movie, Big Lebowski, where we see a battle between two political positions (Lebowski as "hippie" vs. the Malibu police chief as "fascist") followed by a battle between two aesthetic positions (the taxi driver likes The Eagles vs. Lebowski prefers Creedence Clearwater Revival).