Lucy Stonehill '10's recent column ("See You In Hell," Feb. 5), which simultaneously condemns diversity, tolerance and relativism, would have been comical were it not so depressing. If Miss Stonehill read the works of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, linguist Ferdinand de Saussure or -- God forbid -- theologian St. Augustine, she would realize that her vaunted objectivity is both hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
Stonehill claims that religious belief "requires rigid closed-mindedness" and academic study "demands the fluid exchange of ideas between malleable, unprejudiced minds." I hope few would disagree on the latter point; however, the former -- supported only by Miss Stonehill's personal interpretation of what was said in class -- reveals a troubling double standard.
A cursory study of Greek or the term's historical usage will demonstrate that "religious apology" is, in fact, a cogent argument, yet Miss Stonehill declares it to be outright denial. All beliefs require a systematic defense; the alternative is that we blindly accept some ideas while blindly rejecting others. Every belief system contains a defense of its own worldview.
Furthermore, Stonehill's transparent agenda leaves no room for alternatives: "More importantly, however, they solidified an already existing belief of mine -- namely, that expressing religious zeal is antithetical to academic learning." Herein lies the core problem of her argument: while demanding that religious individuals lay aside their assumptions, she not only brings her own to the academic table but suggests that tolerating a contrary belief "inhibits learning."
Accusing a system of belief of being in denial ignores our own cognitive limitations. Miss Stonehill falsely asserts that "one can perform critical, insightful analysis only by placing one's personal creeds on the backburner." Having accepted the premise that our beliefs can negatively influence our analysis, she fails to recognize that it is not only religious beliefs that shape how we view what lies before us.
Augustine proved our individual past experiences determine how we interpret the present. Simply tell a child from a war-torn nation and one from suburban America to play in the street and this conclusion becomes blatantly obvious. Saussure showed our arbitrary construct of language influences our understanding of the world by causing us to view it in terms particular to our own language group. Saussure's argument will become evident during any translation of a text. Geertz concludes that "culture provides the link between what men are intrinsically capable of becoming and what they actually, one by one, in fact become."
Regardless of which reasoning you follow, it is arrogant to assume you are capable of setting aside all of your experience; in fact, to attempt to do so would be foolish. It is our experiences that enable us to understand and analyze -- not some raw intellect.
We must always strive to recognize and control our own cultural assumptions. My own religious, socioeconomic and political assumptions define how I interpret a text or an image. Given that no one shares my exact background -- and indeed, relatively few share even a similar background to me -- these assumptions may alter my interpretation of a source. I attempt to control these beliefs, while, at the same time, recognizing the fact that my views can never be completely objective. A lack of total objectivity does not, however, always invalidate an argument from the outset.
