Contextualism: The Cure for Dogmatism and Relativism
The temptation to concentrate on a single value (freedom, justice, inclusion, equity, caring) at the expense of others is big: It makes life easy, it offers simple solutions, and it follows well-established traditions. Reality, however, points us in the opposite direction. The empirical evidence indicates that values are interdependent. We cannot pursue self-determination in the absence of opportunities; nor can we attain collaboration and democratic participation without chances to express voice and choice.
The reciprocal nature of people’s abilities and opportunities determines the web-like nature of values. Needs are most efficiently and humanely met when all values act in concert. Any time one of the values is singled out as most important, others are bound to suffer. Take the prevalence of individualism in the United States. No wonder there is so much competition and lack of solidarity in the country. Looking out for number one is a national obsession reinforced by the media and popular culture.
Take now the opposite case of the former Soviet Union. People had to sacrifice for the state, and there was no room for self-determination. The support for the state expected from Soviet citizens overshadowed the need for self-expression and freedom -- freedom from and freedom to.
The interdependence of freedom and community requires that we place limits on both of them. To begin, certain limits on freedom are required to protect the common good: We expect people to wear masks to prevent the spread of a pandemic; we don’t allow people to drive while intoxicated because they risk killing themselves and others. Similarly, we put limits on what communities can do to individuals so that we may protect their privacy. Parts of the community may wish to regulate sexual behavior, but laws prevent the state from entering the bedroom. Respect for diversity comes to the rescue of freedom to (freedom to choose a gender identity); while social justice comes to the rescue of freedom from (freedom from hunger and preventable diseases).
There cannot be a single value to promote personal, organizational and collective wellness at the same time. Rather, we need a set of values that is internally consistent, that avoids dogmatism and relativism, and that promotes congruence between means and ends. Whereas some values may advocate personal more than collective wellness, such as the principle of self-determination, others may balance it by fostering caring and compassion for others. This reasoning calls for a search of values that can balance the promotion of personal wellness with the affirmation of collective and organizational wellness at the same time. If we did not have rules against smoking in public spaces, more children would be affected by second-hand smoking. We need collective norms to protect citizens against potential abuses of power and excesses of individual rights.
The interdependence of values is imperiled by dogmatism and relativism. The antidote to these extreme beliefs is contextualism.
Dogmatism leads to the coercive enforcement and application of single sets of beliefs, an approach that undermines human diversity. Relativism, in turn, grants equal merit to any set of values, thereby paralyzing us because we would have no criteria to praise or condemn competing orientations. Dogmatism and relativism are common traps in discussions about values because they promote either or thinking, as opposed to both/and reasoning.
Values are guidelines for helping others. I am especially, but not exclusively, interested in values that promote the well-being of disadvantaged people. Given that people’s needs vary according to their particular circumstances, it is nearly impossible to formulate a universal list of values. Hence, we must remember that any proposed set of values contains contextual limitations. Therefore, we should avoid the dogmatic application of values regardless of the context.
Some groups may require, because of their context, certain values more than others. Whereas people with low-income may need financial support more than signs of compassion, wealthy people with a disability may need emotional support more than material help.
We should also keep in mind that the meaning of values varies according to people’s experiences. The value of independence may have a complete different meaning for an able-bodied person than for a person with a physical disability. In cases like this, interdependence may be more valued than independence. Keeping in mind that the context determines the set of values that is required is a good antidote against the dogmatic application of beliefs. Asking people themselves what they need goes a long way to ensure that we do not impose on them inappropriate values.
Within a given social context, some values appear at the foreground of our consciousness, while others remain in the background. To attain the necessary balance, we must shift the neglected values to the foreground. Within the present social context, this means shifting the value of social justice from the background to the foreground, and pushing the obsession with personal advancement from the foreground to the background. If we keep neglecting social justice and our collective duties, we will merely reinforce the same unjust state of affairs that perpetuates oppression, whereas if we keep exalting self-determination we will undermine any possible sense of community.
Dr. Isaac Prilleltensky is an award-winning academic and author. He is also a coach, consultant and a researcher. His latest book, co-authored with his wife, Dr. Ora Prilleltensky, is How People Matter: Why it Affects Health, Happiness, Love, Work, and Society (Cambridge University Press, 2021). Press here to order.