Can we judge works of literature by
our own personal values? Or must we judge them by the values of the
characters or perhaps the original author in order to appreciate them
in the way their originator intended? I posit that these questions
are all questions that must be answered for oneself, that there is no
true to value to the interpretation of literature, or in fact any
art,
We encountered a cultural clash when
reading Things Fall Apart. When Okonkwo kills his foster son and
discusses the village practice of killing infant twins, we are
inclined to judge him by our own values and say that these things are
wrong. The same goes when he beats his wife and forlornly wishes
that his able-ist daughter had been born his son. But while it is
our natural inclination to feel this way, cultural relativism and
years of literature-interpretation conditioning say that we ought
only judge Okonkwo by his own culture. And in his own culture all
these things were just or, failing that, forgivable. What would make
him a villain in our culture merely makes him a man in his own.
According to James Rachels' “The
Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, this cultural relativism is a
widely held theory. He finds it to be logically flawed to follow
cultural relativism to the conclusion that there is no inherent
truths, but at the same time suggests that using its premises to
question assumed moral truths would be wise. He says that just
because there might be moral truths doesn't mean they necessarily lie
with your culture and that it is always best to question such thins.
He doesn't put any of this in the context of interpreting literature,
but we all be so high minded in our contemplations, now can we?
I agree with Rachels' assertion that
it is always good to question our own culture. I agree with him that
there are facts – the world is certainly spherical and not flat.
But I don't see how that carries on to the idea that there are true
moral facts. I think at its heart morals are what they are because
there isn't any sort of truth behind them besides a communal trust.
If they were inherent truths that trust would not be needed and the
power people put behind morals would be much diminished. But that is
the real world: in literature I feel that I ought be able to
interpret however I wish. So I pick and I choose and I look at books
both ways. From the perspective of the characters, to get a feel
for their values, and from my own perspective, to know where I draw
the line. Some lines are drawn out quite clearly and others just
inferred. Luckily there's no moral imperative against being
indecisive.
