The War for Children's Minds

Stephen Law

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9780415378550
• eBook ISBN: 9781134182664
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Behind headlines on the conflict in Iraq and global terrorism, a much deeper battle is raging over children and the values they should adopt. Political and religious leaders including Blair and Bush have been joined by the popular press in Enlightenment-bashing and bitter attacks on `liberal parenting calling for a return to authority and religious tradition. How do we raise good children? How do we make good citizens? In defiant yet acute fashion, Stephen Law urges us to re-evaluate the liberal tradition of thinking about morality. Tackling authoritarian rhetoric head-on, he argues that children should learn about right and wrong, and respect for others, but that their education should be grounded in the hard-won values of the Enlightenment. Taking on neo-conservatives and religious and media commentators, The War for Children's Minds is a candid and controversial call for a liberal, philosophically informed approach to raising children. A staunch defence of the humane, liberal life, The War for Children's Minds is a much-needed guide to an urgent moral conundrum.

The Great Myth and the War for Children’s Minds
Eight

‘Relativist!’

Before we look at the question of whether the Liberal approach to moral and religious education advocated in this book involves a commitment to moral relativism, let’s set the scene by looking at how the charge of relativism is made more generally against ‘liberals’.

The US has recently seen the publication of a number of books with titles like How to Talk to a Liberal – If You Must (Coulter 2004), Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War on Christianity (Limbaugh 2003), and even Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed (DeBrecht and Hummel 2005) (the publisher calls it ‘the book conservative parents have been seeking’¹). Some of these books accuse ‘liberals’ (whoever they are, exactly) of being stupid, amoral and unpatriotic. Some even suggest America is in the grip of a ‘liberal’ conspiracy to undermine Christianity and the American Way and turn your children gay.

Interestingly, among the various charges laid against ‘liberals’, relativism is one of the most popular. Let’s take a look at a couple of examples.

In his inspiringly-titled Let Freedom Ring, Sean Hannity (2002: 137–138), political pundit at Fox News, suggests that one reason US ‘liberals’ are hostile to the teaching of the Declaration of Independence in public schools is that

… liberals absolutely abhor and militantly reject the Founders’ belief in absolute truth. America’s Founders believed deeply in certain fundamental truths about life, liberty, and the nature of man. In fact, they believed – they weren’t just inserting lofty-sounding but meaningless platitudes in the document – that such truths were ‘self-evident’. By sharp contrast, the Left embraces moral relativism with an arrogant tenacity.

There you are: ‘liberals’ – who, incidentally, Hannity seems to equate with ‘the Left’ – embrace moral relativism.

Limbaugh (2003), author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, also thinks ‘liberals’ are, or are mostly, relativists. Limbaugh responded in an interview to a comment about ‘liberalism’ by saying that while ‘liberals’

… subscribe to moral relativism and no absolute truth, they betray their standards when it comes to judging Christians. They apply an absolute standard when it comes to Christians and they condemn us for our beliefs, so they’re completely hypocritical on that. … The Judeo-Christian ethic is one that is undergirded by absolute truth. Liberals, by and large, don’t subscribe to any such value system (Interview by John Hawkins with Limbaugh on Limbaugh’s book: Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity).

Limbaugh here accuses ‘liberals’ of both relativism and hypocrisy: they proclaim relativism and non-judgementalism, yet here they are making moral judgements about Christian attitudes towards, say, homosexuality or the place of prayer in schools. Outrageous.

But are ‘liberals’, by and large, relativists?

Many people who describe themselves as ‘liberal’ reject relativism. Here in the UK, many call themselves ‘liberal’. Among those I know, I’m not aware of any who consider themselves relativists. But maybe things are different in the US. Maybe, over the pond, ‘liberals’ do tend to sign up to the kind of hypocritical, non-judgementalist relativism of which they are repeatedly accused. But maybe not. Few of those who claim ‘Liberals are relativists’ appear to have done much research into the moral beliefs of those they describe as ‘liberal’. Sometimes their evidence amounts to little more than a series of anecdotes. Undoubtedly, some ‘liberals’ do embrace moral relativism. Perhaps many do. But the suggestion that all, or most, of them are relativists seems poorly founded. Are most ‘liberals’ relativists? I have no idea. But then in many cases neither, I suspect, do those making the accusation.

And yet the factoid that ‘liberals are relativists’ has become heavily woven into the psyche of conservative America. Type ‘liberal’ and ‘relativist’ into Google and see what you get. I did, and quickly came up with a great deal of this sort of thing:

The modern liberal is a self-proclaimed relativist, who does not believe in unbiased truth. Naturally, such a person does not believe in fairness or honesty either, both being relative. I do not say this is true of 100% of liberals, but it is true of most of them.²

On what evidence is this accusation made? None at all. In the US, the accusation ‘Relativist’ appears to have supplanted even ‘Communist’ in terms of its popularity, vitriol and baselessness.

Incidentally, another group endlessly dismissed as relativists are atheists (of whom there are comparatively few in the US). That all atheists are relativists is also a myth. Many of my friends and colleagues from both sides of the Atlantic are atheists. I’m not aware of any who are moral relativists (certainly not of the ‘politically correct’ variety). Nor does atheism entail relativism, as any good introduction to the philosophy of religion should explain (see, for example, ‘Does Morality Depend On God And Religion?’ in The Philosophy Gym (Law 2003)).

So that sets the scene: the charge of relativism is dished out repeatedly – in many cases without much foundation – by many on the political and religious right. It’s an accusation they use to discredit their ‘liberal’ opponents.

Relativism and Liberalism-with-a-Capital-‘L’

But what of Liberals-with-a-capital-‘L’? What of the Liberal approach to moral education outlined in chapter three? Does that involve a commitment to moral relativism?

No. Liberals-with-a-capital-‘L’ needn’t be relativists. There are similarities, of course. Both emphasize the importance of individual autonomy. But, as we’ll see below, neither Liberalism, nor the Liberal approach to moral education advocated here, requires a commitment to relativism.

Science is Liberal, Not Relativist

Liberals recommend that individuals think critically and make their own judgement rather than more-or-less unquestioningly take on board the pronouncements of some external Authority. That does not require they embrace relativism and ‘anything goes’ non-judgementalism.

Compare empirical science. It too emphasizes the importance of independent critical thought. But to acknowledge the importance of getting scientists to think autonomously rather than uncritically defer to others is not to take the relativist view that all scientific theories – including even the theories that the sun goes round the Earth and that Mars is inhabited by giant wasps – are equally ‘true’.
It’s not to say that science is just a matter of making up one’s own scientific reality (as if, were we suddenly to change our minds about the Earth moving, it would immediately grind to a halt). Nor is it to embrace the non-judgementalist view that one scientist ought never to judge the theory of another. Obviously not, in fact.

Notice that, if this sort of scientific relativism were true, there would be no point to independent scientific investigation. Experiment and observation would be a waste of time. If every scientific opinion was as good as every other, then the judgement that a scientist arrived at after careful thought and study would be no better than the one they started with.

Clearly, to suggest that scientists ought to think independently rather than just uncritically defer to, say, the Authority of Aristotle or The Bible (as they tended to before the Enlightenment) is not to embrace relativism and non-judgementalism about scientific truth.

Exactly the same is true of morality. Indeed, it’s precisely because proponents of the Liberal approach advocated here think there really is a non-relative truth to discover about what’s right and what’s wrong that they place so much emphasis on questioning and critical thinking. If we simply invent or make up morality, why bother being so scrupulously careful about getting it right? If every moral opinion is as good as every other, then the judgement I arrive at after much careful thought will be no better than the one I started with. If relativism were true, there would be no point bothering with the kind of critical thinking recommended here.

So the kind of Liberal approach outlined in chapter three is not committed to moral relativism. It is, in effect, opposed to it.

A Map of the Terrain

We can illustrate the point that Liberalism doesn’t entail relativism by means of a diagram. We saw back in chapter two that the Liberal and Authoritarian positions lie on a scale. You can be more or less Liberal, and more or less Authoritarian, like so

This book recommends we situate ourselves well to the left on this scale.

Now the issue that divides moral relativists and non-relativists lies on another axis altogether, an axis that cuts across the Liberal/ Authoritarian axis like so:

Meet Ted, a non-relativist and an Authoritarian.Ted is to be found in the top right hand corner of our diagram.Ted’s position is a very traditional position, of course: the position of many religious conservatives. He believes there are objective, non-relative facts about right and wrong. Ted also believes that young people need to accept, more-or-less uncritically, these facts from those who know.

But non-relativists don’t have to be Authoritarian. Take Carol, for example. Carol is in the top left corner. Carol agrees with Ted that there are absolute (i.e. non-relative) facts about right and wrong. She agrees that morality is certainly not a mere matter of subjective choice or preference. We can even suppose, if you like, that Carol is a Christian who believes that what’s right and wrong has been objectively laid down by God. But still, Carol thinks each of us needs to figure out for ourselves what those facts are. Unlike Ted, Carol believes children should be taught and encouraged to think critically and independently. Carol rejects Ted’s view that they should be told to defer more-or-less uncritically to Authority.

You can now see that there are more options available than just relativism (the bottom half of the chart) and Authoritarianism (the right hand side of the chart).To suppose that our choice is between relativism and Authoritarianism is to overlook the possibility of our occupying the top left hand corner of the chart.That’s a corner Authoritarians tend to overlook. It’s the corner I recommend we occupy.

A Philosophically Basic Point

None of this is rocket science, philosophically speaking. It’s basic stuff. Philosophers regularly make the same point. Here, for example, is philosopher Le Poidevin (1996: 84–85) explaining it in characteristically clear fashion:

To value moral autonomy is not … to embrace moral scepticism and deny, or doubt, the existence of moral values. It is more likely to go together with an honest attempt to work out moral values … Nor does autonomy necessarily lead one to moral relativism …

The autonomous agent may well believe in the existence of objective moral values. Autonomy would then consist in working out what those values are.

But, despite being philosophically basic, it’s a point lost on many critics of Liberal moral and religious education. They believe that anyone who emphasizes the importance of moral autonomy must, by default, be a relativist.

How a Liberal School Can Combat Relativism

Ironically, rather than being the root cause of relativism and non-judgementalism, a good Liberal education of the sort outlined in chapter three can actually provide an effective defence against it. A Liberal school can, and no doubt should, warn its pupils of the perils of moral relativism. Rather than promoting relativistic attitudes, a Liberal school is free to explain, clearly and forcefully, exactly what’s wrong with them. If you want young people to reject moral relativism, is the best method to clamp down on independent, critical thought and insist they defer to external Authority? I suspect a more successful approach would be to give young people the skills they need to recognize for themselves exactly why the ‘politically correct’ arguments for relativism, while seductive, are muddle-headed nonsense.

Religious Education and Relativism

What’s also ironic, given the tendency of religious Authoritarians to blame Liberals for the rise of relativism, is that one of its causes may yet turn out to be t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• About Notes and Appendices
• Introduction
• The Enlightenment’s Twisted Legacy: One
• Liberal With a Capital ‘L’: Two
• Liberal and Authoritarian Educational Methods: Three
• Why Be Liberal (With a Capital ‘L’)?: Four
• Different Kinds of Authority: Five
• The Moral Malaise and Moral Relativism: Six
• What’s Wrong with Moral Relativism?: Seven
• The Great Myth and the War for Children’s Minds: Eight
• Reason and Morality: Nine
• Good Habits and the Rise of ‘Character Education’: Ten
• Tradition and Community: Eleven
• Keeping the Masses In Line: Twelve
• Conclusion and Recommendation: Thirteen
• The Enlightenment and the Holocaust: Appendix One
• MacIntyre On Authority and the Enlightenment: Appendix Two
• Notes
• Bibliography