Over the past year or so, I have read with a mixture of frustration and delight a variety of responses to my columns ranging from adulation to hate mail and from highly respectable arguments to pointlessly belligerent and ad hominem rants. I'm not bothered by the petty insults, claims of moral superiority and taunting that I have endured. However, one thing really gets under my skin. I seem to attract a lot of the same labels -- whether I'm writing about war, politics, religion, maybe even the Greek system. I have been called a "moral relativist," one who does not see the value in human life, intolerant of religion, an atheist (although I'm not offended by that one) and, every now and then, something as desperate as "unhappy."
It is possible that this is no coincidence, that I'm giving off the wrong vibe, failing to communicate something in each of my columns. But the frequency of use of these types of labels nationwide belies a sweeping tendency to paint free-thinking postmodern agnostic liberals such as myself in the same manner. These are catch-phrases, and witnessing the abuse of such catch-phrases is what got me started writing columns in the first place.
Why am I constantly criticized for believing things that I simply don't believe? I value my religion, and would never tell anyone not to value his or her own. I value human life and the morals that protect it as much as anyone you meet on the street. But I question where these values and morals are based in a way that scares people. I say that human life has its own value that is independent of religion and miracles. I say that we should think twice before raising a flag, going to war, running around a bonfire, supporting a politician or breeding like rabbits, but not that we shouldn't do these things at all.
Many people believe that without a foundation such as faith, the value of human life and our entire moral code are hopelessly doomed. Many believe that there can be no balance of pluralism, that we must either treat the rest of the world as morally inferior or else admit that everyone is equally right (moral relativism). These are false assumptions generally predicated on arguments taken out of context or extended to more extreme positions. It has always been my position that we should embrace but not be afraid to question our societal values, asking critically, "What is religious and what is secular?" and "Which moral distinctions are clear-cut and which are not?"
But it's easier for some to believe that I and those like me have a huge moral failing, rendering us incapable of truly appreciating life, religion, morality or anything that our society considers "good." It would all make sense if I had a wholly different world-view that caused me to see things differently. The post-Sept. 11 world has been flooded with an "either you're with us or you're against us" mentality, and even slight dissent from popular opinion has been treated with savage attacks from some liberals and conservatives alike. There is a kind of fear of anyone whose values and morals might make them more susceptible to or complicit with the twisted logic of murderous individuals.
American culture has become even more anti-intellectual than before, and it is becoming very hard for the highly-educated liberal minority to be politically effective in the face of such harsh and unfair accusations as has become routine. Catch phrases like "ivory tower" and "deconstructionist" attempt to mock and undermine the very basis of our strength. It is clear that the world is every bit as complicated as it was before, and we need both sides, the ivory tower scholars and the real-life working-class men and women to sort this mess out.
We've got to strike a balance, but we've also got to learn to trust each other. To say that any one political party is acting solely in the interest of increasing its power and that the other has the best interests of the nation at heart is just absurd. What's great about this nation is that everyone can have a different idea as to what makes us great, everyone can have a different vision about how to improve things.
Furthermore, we've got to give each other a chance, and we've got to start here, in our own little community. Op-ed columns such as "Valuing Life" (The Dartmouth, Mark Yohalem '02, April 1) may make good arguments, but they miss out on the bigger picture, such as having respect for our fellow community members and writing journalism with integrity and dignity. If my sarcasm and calls to curb our enthusiasm about one thing or another rub you the wrong way, realize, dear reader, that challenging our values is what makes them better and stronger. Questioning religious dogma is vital to religion itself, which is based on submission to a higher truth that we in life can never reach. I've gotten into conversations with countless people who have written columns that disagree with me, and with rare exception these have ended with near-complete agreement.
It's a big, nasty world out there, and it isn't going to get a bit more tolerant if our generation can't learn to make nice even when we have such a beautiful common ground as four years here.
