AMERICAN INDIVIDUALISM AND VALUE RELATIVISM *MICHAEL R. LEMING* Associate Professor of Sociology St. Olaf College In the opening of Habits of the Heart the authors review four case studies which exemplify the lifestyles and commitments of people who live in a society which promotes individualism. Summarizing these four biographies, Bellah et al. makes the following conclusion: Each of these individuals are all involved in caring for others. They are responsible and, in many ways, admirable adults. Yet when each of them uses the moral discourse they share, they have difficulty articulating the richness of their commitments. In the language they use, their lives sound more isolated and arbitrary than, as we have observed them, they actually are. Thus all four of the persons assume that there is something arbitrary about their goals of a good life. When asked if these goals are better than the past, or than those of other people, these people would all claim that their goals are only personally appropriate for the present time and circumstance. A major value necessary in supporting individualism in American society is a commitment of value pluralism--everyone has the right to their own beliefs and values. However, if there is a certain inherent degree of validity in another's values (which may be contrary to one's own values), then everyone's value commitments are necessarily precarious. This theme relates directly to Peter Berger's (1967:133) discussion of religion and the secularization of society: Religion is located in the private sphere of everyday social life and is marked by the very peculiar traits of this sphere in modern society. One of the essential traits is that of "individualization." This means that privatized religion in a matter of the "choice" or "preference" of the individual or of the nuclear family, ipso facto lacking in common, binding quality. Such private religiosity, however, "real" it may be to the individual who adopts it, cannot any longer fulfill the classical task or religion, that of a common world within which all of social life receives ultimate meaning binding on everybody. Instead, this religiosity is limited to specific enclaves of social life that may be effectively segregated from the secularized sectors of modern society. The over-all effect of this process is that religion will only manifest itself as public rhetoric and private virtue. In this short paper I would like to address the role of individualism in American life as it relates to making personal value commitments and discussing these commitments in public discourse. I would also like to discuss the role of private religious-based educational institutions which attempt to facilitate value-commitments within a pluralistic society. I believe that Peter Berger (1967) has done an excellent job in capturing the dilemma of the modern American individual who has made personal value commitments. He or she can privately live a life which reflects a strong commitment to a world view or to a set of personal values. These value commitments will most likely be supported by a group of individuals who share the world view (e.g., a spouse, a friendship network, or a local church). But given the larger society, which is extremely pluralistic with respect to values, he or she cannot assume a world view, or set of values, which has "an objective taken-for-granted status." In public discourse, Americans find it very difficult to discuss those things which are at the core of their personal values. Furthermore, they are extremely suspicious of those people who are able to openly speak of such personal commitments. In a 1987 Gallup Poll, as reported by the Minneapolis Star and Tribune (March 8, 1987:13A), when a random sample of Americans were asked the question: "Which group of people would you not like to have as neighbors?", 44% listed members of religious sects or cults and 13% listed "religious fundamentalists." What we find is that Americans are more comfortable in keeping their deeply held beliefs to themselves. When they do discuss these beliefs, it is typically only with individuals who share their commitments. Consequently, religion and politics are thought to be topics which polite people appropriately avoid in most social settings. Since American society is so pluralistic with respect to values, and because there are so many plausibility structures which compete with each other for social legitimacy, Berger (1967:151) is correct in concluding that religious beliefs in American society have become "de-objectified"--deprived of their status of a "taken-for-granted" objective reality. As a result, Berger (1967:152) would contend that value commitments have become "subjectivized" in a double sense: Their "reality" becomes a "private" affair of individuals--they cannot talk with others about it. And their "reality" is believed to be rooted in their personal consciousness and not in the objective realities of the external world--there is not an objective source of TRUTH to which all Americans refer. In a recent class discussion I asked my students the following question: "Where do values come from?" To my dismay and embarrassment, a senior sociology-psychology major replied, "Values are innate." When I challenged her answer, she replied, "That's what I think." Then the rest of the class nodded in agreement. Yet, personal values are very salient in the daily lives of Americans--so important and personally relevant that they cannot talk about them. This is not unlike my "Swedish father-in-law who loved his wife so much that he almost told her once." I would now like to turn our attention to the dilemma faced by the value-committed liberal arts college. I am an alumni of Westmont College. I am also a sociology professor at St. Olaf College--which is a Lutheran, church-related liberal arts college. One problem, as I see it, facing a church-related or Christian liberal arts college, is that in encouraging our students to develop an appreciation for the multiplicity of knowledge, values, and culture; they may become relativistic to a point where they fail to appreciate those factors in their own way of life which make them unique and provides for them a sense of personal identity. With regard to my religious faith and intellectual growth, I encountered a number of problems while I was a student at Westmont. As a freshman I came to realize that there were many complex questions which could not be answered by the simple "Sunday school faith" which I had found plausible in high school. My philosophy and sociology courses had caused me to develop a world view that was more "relative" than "absolute." As I rejected "Ethnocentrism" in favor of "Cultural Pluralism," my world view became open to many value systems. At the same time it became more closed to certitude of any type. Furthermore, when I began relativising the relativisers (during the remainder of my formal education), I realized that it might be impossible ever to have a sense of "What's What." William Perry (1965) would suggest that intellectual and moral development will always proceed in this manner. We tend to enter college with "world views" which provide us with "black and white" answers, and progress to a position of relativism where we realize that most of the answers to complex questions can only be presented in shades of gray. The role of the professor in a liberal arts college, inherently requires a posture of cynicism and relativity. As professors, we must always encourage our students to examine issues from many perspectives and points of view. We challenge even "correct" answers with probes such as "are you sure," or "from another perspective your answer is overly simplistic." The commitment of the young scholar to value pluralism and cultural relativism oftentimes prevents him or her from making other value commitments. Sociologists are probably even more cynical and relativistic than other professors. We have been trained to challenge and debunk society's taken-for-granted meanings. In so doing, we may give our students the impression that it is impossible to make any value commitments at all. Returning to William Perry's (1965) model of intellectual and moral development, Perry claims that the more mature individual is able to go beyond relativism to what he refers to as "committed relativism." A committed relativist realizes that there are other points of view, but is still able to make a commitment to a course of action or value perspective. Unfortunately, these commitments become "privatized reality" or purely personal beliefs. One of the adverse consequences of commitments to the values of individualism and relativism on the St. Olaf campus (which unlike Westmont College does not have a belief statement and is considerably more religiously pluralistic), is that it undermines any serious open discussion and consideration of education within a Christian context. To paraphrase Berger (1967:134) again, Privatized religion [the form of religion which is practiced at St. Olaf] cannot unify the community of scholars by providing their academic endeavors with a sense of ultimate meaning binding on everybody. Instead, religion (or value commitments) at St. Olaf will be limited to specific enclaves of social life (the chapel, a dormitory bull session or prayer group, or possibly a religion class) that may be effectively segregated from all other scholarly activities. The over-all effect of this process is that religion at St. Olaf will manifest itself in the public rhetoric of the mission statement found in the college catalogue, or in the private devotional lives of members of the college community. Yet, is it not possible for a community of scholars (even one which does not share a common set of religious beliefs) to transcend value relativism? In the words of Martin Marty (1981), our goal in the academy must not be to become "tolerant of all things" because in so doing we become "wishy washy." Rather, we should strive to commit ourselves to fight against "intolerance." As professors we must reveal and explicitly state our own value commitments, assumptions, and world views, in order that the learning experience might have greater intellectual integrity. For if our knowledge prevents us as faculty (and our students) from taking value positions; then those in society who potentially are the best able to make value commitments and are consequently the most likely to contribute to society, will abdicate their leadership role to those who view the world in an intolerant and simplistic manner. Higher education requires open discussion from individuals who are able to understand and articulate different points of view and value commitments. Dialogue of this type contributes to academic growth, where value-privatism only leads to stagnation and intellectual atrophy. References Bellah, Robert M. et. al. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Berger, Peter L. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday. Gallup, George. 1987. 1987 Gallup Poll, Minneapolis: Minneapolis Star and Tribune (March 8, 1987:13A). Marty, Martin. 1981. "Convocation Address at St. Olaf College," April 21, 1981.