|
Alternative
to situationism
By
Lennox Powder
The clash of cultures and world views, heightened by recent
international events, has come to be regarded as defining
a new era in the history of civilisation.
If another divide—this one within the bosom of western
civilisation—is largely unnoticed or trivialised, it
is because it is being played out with such subtlety as to
disguise its significance and consequences.
The divide of reference here is between those who believe
in absolute values and principles, regardless of appearances,
circumstances or consequences, versus those who hold that
everything depends on circumstances and situations, and that
“right” or “preferred” is “what works.”
For those willing to see, there is a gaping, irreconcilable
chasm, a clash no less fundamental, and perhaps no less consequential,
than that between the so-called liberal democracies and those
purporting to represent Islam.
The implications are very far-reaching as regards attainment
of moral excellence or continued moral degeneration.
The matter is bestirred, perhaps quite unwittingly, ever so
often, as was done by Lloyd Best’s article titled “Afro
family hit by public policy” (Express, November 6).
He posits that conditions and circumstances which historically
impacted on “Afros” resulted in social relationships
taking precedence over blood ties, and necessitated “a
certain flexibility in the arrangements for cradling offspring,”
leading to “an extremely pragmatic and innovative distinction
between wedding and marriage.”
He cites one author who “found Jamaican ‘common
law’ marriages to be among the most stable unions...,”
and opines that “the decisive requirement is the legitimacy
the community confers or withholds.”
He advances the importance of considering “culture”
and “historical experience” in evaluating the Afro
family and contends that “we need a reasonably sure grasp
of how things came to be, how they work and what their merits
are.”
Intentionally or otherwise, Best has aligned himself with
the situationists, which, of course, is his right.
But, by no means singular in this regard, he takes his position
so matter-of-factly as to risk the insinuation that the situationist
posture is axiomatic and uncontestable.
That may be so for those who acknowledge no arbiter beyond
man and society and who are resigned to living by their own
wits, exploring options as seen fit and harvesting experience
from the outcomes to inform progress.
For those so persuaded, propriety is based on “what works,”
which is but a case of the end justifying the means.
For them, process is legitimised on the basis of human evaluation
of outcome, which may be fine in utilitarian matter, but not
in matters of moral conduct, where outcome transcends the
pragmatic and tangible.
Neither is legitimacy a function of “culture” or
“historical experience,” as Best avers.
Moral values and standards must be universal and timeless,
independent of geography and history, place and era; the same
yesterday, today and forever.
That is so because moral values and standards are based on
truth, as distinct from facts, which change as new facts and
perspectives emerge.
But truth, which comes only from God, never changes.
The situationist world view is now so widely taken for granted
that it has assumed pretensions to truism.
But the alternative position of acknowledging absolute values
and principles has its own inherent plausibility.
The decisive point of departure has to do with fundamental
belief system.
For those who do not believe in God, as well as those who
believe in God but do not believe God, there may be no sound
basis for absolutes of any kind. Everything is relative.
But for those who subscribe to the revealed word of God, there
are absolute prescriptions for social living, including structures,
relationships and prohibitions related to procreating and
bringing up offspring and parenting generally, irrespective
of human judgment, preference, expedience or verdict on what
works.
What criteria and time frame determine when an arrangement
has worked? Sometimes it takes until the “third and fourth
generations” for the “sins of the fathers”
to manifest their consequences, as is currently playing out,
for example, in the aftermath of the Marxist-Leninist experiment
in the former Soviet Union.
If today’s societal convulsions are fruits of the “flexibility
in arrangements” of which Best speaks, then such arrangements
have clearly failed.
We are to “live by faith and not by sight.” We are
to obey the word of God in spite of appearances and regardless
of consequences, because God’s word is inerrant.
Propriety of process is not determined by human satisfaction
with product. And legitimacy is not conferred by the community,
as Best claims, as that would subject legitimacy to popular
will, which may be good enough for political action, but not
for moral considerations.
Not only has popular will been known to be mistaken, but it
is vulnerable to manipulation, or as Plato would say, “gangsterism.”
Moral issues must be left to the “author and finisher,”
who has already spoken through His word.
Contrary to Best, it is not about “some encyclical dictating
that families clean up their act;” it is the word of
the living God which mandates the cleaning up.
And, fortunately, on the matter of structures and relationships
for family life, the major religions practised in T&T
concur.
For much too long the relativist, situationist paradigm has
been allowed to gain ascendancy to the extend of threatening
to all but efface other constructs of reality.
But at the risk of being labelled fanatical or fundamentalist,
the truth must be told.
If the vast majority of us in T&T believe in God, then
we ought also to believe God’s word, which speaks profoundly
on matters of morals.
For us, the vast majority, that is the truth, and it is absolute.
To genuine believers, situationism has no appeal, even if
it may be the “Best” perspective. “He who has
ears, let him hear.”
|
