At one time, the function of a liberal education was thought to be the cultivation of rigorous reasoning processes and refined tastes by which educated people could arrive at the most informed judgments possible on political, social and cultural questions.  Liberal education was itself a product of the Western cultural tradition, which had brought unprecedented freedom and prosperity to unprecedented numbers of people. 

Therefore, it seemed reasonable to give all college students a fair exposure to the very best minds that had contributed to that tradition (and ideally, at least one other tradition as well).  This would enable our planet’s painfully acquired cultural capital to be maintained and even increased by each succeeding generation.

The majority of people now teaching the humanities and social sciences in North American colleges and universities no longer take that as their purpose.  Their purpose is rather to inculcate a visceral contempt for the traditions of Western civilization, and a romantic exaltation of all known alternatives.  This attitude -- for it is more an unexamined attitude than a set of principles or even hypotheses -- is commonly referred to as postmodernism or sometimes relativism.  

Since the desired relativistic mental state cannot be arrived at by a series of reasoned judgments, reasoned judgments are no longer valued on our college campuses.  Even the so-called critical thinking movement is so absurdly selective and politicized in its application as to make a mockery of the concept.  In practice, whenever logic collides with politically correct attitudes, logic is denigrated as just another Western prejudice.  Inconvenient information is ignored if possible or discredited if necessary -- not by reasoned refutation but by reflexive ridicule or demonization. 

Open-mindedness was once cherished as a provisional staying of judgment until the facts are in.  The concept of open-mindedness, however, has been corrupted into a supposedly endless state of suspension of all judgment.  This is not open-mindedness as a means to the end of not-overly-hasty judgments.  This is open-mindedness as a supposed end in itself, either in absolute (yes, there is such a thing as absolute relativism) form or in shiftingly selective -- in other words, unprincipled -- form.  

Where does this leave the contemporary college student?  Unequipped with the tools by which to arrive at informed, reasoned judgments, he is still faced with the necessity of making at least some unavoidable judgments (because the real world does not permit us the luxury of living without making choices that have consequences).  The hapless student is likely to seek one of two escape routes: passivity or dogmatism. 

At first glance, these refuges from reason seem very different from each other.  But they actually complement, rather than conflict with, each other.  For passivity -- allowing others to make one’s judgments -- lends itself to manipulation by charismatic individuals or by the mass media, thus making the passive person an easy pawn of dogmatists and thereby an enabler of dogmatists.

But let’s envision a best-case scenario: a student (or citizen) who is determined to steer a fair course between the Scylla of dogmatism and the Charybdis of passivity.  He has his priorities and knows what they are but, hey, he’s a live-let- live kinda guy.  He’s determined to neither impose upon nor be imposed upon.

Unfortunately, even our skilled sailor will sooner or later run aground on the reef of interpersonal or intergroup conflict.  That’s because, even with the best of intentions, in the real world sometime, somewhere, his priorities will collide with someone else’s in a situation where both cannot be accommodated.  Some things can be negotiated, some conflicts lend themselves to compromise.  But not all.

What then?  The only available means of resolution is manipulation, intimidation or outright coercion -- reason having been expelled from the field, leaving no operative umpire except good old “might makes right” (or “slick does the trick”) .  There’s no court of last resort that has binding moral authority. This is why, sooner or later, cultural relativism collides with human rights.  Relativism takes the most proven, historically reliable umpires (such as reason, logic, and that indefinable but recognizable combination of judiciousness and large-mindedness and historical depth and breadth -- by golly, could it be wisdom?) out of the game.  The players are on their own.  They’re free (temporarily).  But unfortunately, that freedom includes freedom from morality for those inclined to grab power when and where they may.  And equally unfortunately, it includes freedom from protection for those who just want to be left alone.      

For a mind that has not been equipped to cut through sophistry is helpless against the many guises that corrupt power assumes. Sadly, the day will then come when a corrupt power is irresistibly positioned to wield naked coercion and suppress freedom of thought.  At that point, the handmaiden role played by relativism in the triumph of dogmatism (and worse) becomes apparent -- too late.         

Patricia Reed is a freelance essayist and book reviewer who lives on Michigan's Upper Peninsula.  She has been published in
Policy Review, Reader's Digest, World & I, and by ICS Press.

Email Patricia Reed

Send this Article to a Friend