At the end of my last blog I used the word
“prejudiced” in the sense of biased, partial or one-sided, and usually this is
meant in a negative sense. Often the negative connotation of the word is even
stronger. So the Internet version of the Cambridge
Dictionary describes the substantive “prejudice” as “an unfair and unreasonable opinion or
feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge”. Now
it is so that there are also positive prejudices. Nevertheless, there is always
a sense of reprehensibility attached to it, but is having prejudices only to be
disapproved of?
The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer
has examined the concept of prejudice in his treatise Truth and Method. He defends there the view that there is a
prejudice against prejudice. According to him “not until the Enlightenment does
the concept of prejudice acquire the negative connotation familiar today.” (273)
And Gadamer continues: “Actually ‘prejudice’ means a judgment that is rendered
before all the elements that determine a situation have been finally examined.
In German legal terminology a ‘prejudice’ is a provisional legal verdict before
the final verdict is reached. For someone involved in a legal dispute, this
kind of judgment against him affects his chances adversely. Accordingly, the
French prejudice, as well as the Latin praejudicium, means simply ‘adverse
effect,’ ‘disadvantage,’ ‘harm.’ But this negative sense is only derivative.
The negative consequence depends precisely on the positive validity, the value
of the provisional decision as a prejudgment, like that of any precedent.” (ibid.)
So, actually a prejudice is a pre-judice, so a pre-judgment: a preliminary judgment passed before the final
judgment. It will be changed into a final judgment when one has enough
information for doing so. As such “prejudice” is a neutral concept, neither positive
nor negative: “Thus ‘prejudice’ certainly does not necessarily mean a false
judgment, but part of the idea is that it can have either a positive or a
negative value.” However, “[t]his seems a long way from our current use of the
word.” (ibid.) How did this come
about? According to Gadamer, this change of the meaning of the concept must be attributed
to the “spirit of rationality” during the Enlightenment: “The German Vorurteil, like the English ‘prejudice’,
... seems to have been limited in its meaning by the Enlightenment critique of
religion simply to the sense of an ‘unfounded judgment.’ The only thing that
gives a judgment dignity is its having a basis, a methodological justification (and not the fact that it may actually
be correct). For the Enlightenment the absence of such a basis does not mean
that there might be other kinds of certainty, but rather that the judgment has
no foundation in the things themselves—i.e., that it is ‘unfounded.’ This
conclusion follows only in the spirit of rationalism. It is the reason for
discrediting prejudices and the reason scientific knowledge claims to exclude
them completely.” (ibid.; my italics)
Gadamer shows then how the origin of the
negative meaning of “prejudgment” is to be found in the supposed necessity of a
“methodological justification” of the facts. The essence is that in the Enlightenment
the view took root that all knowledge must have a rational – in this case
methodological – foundation, but when the Enlightenment philosophers examined
the knowledge acquired in the past, they saw that such a foundation was absent and
that this knowledge was often obscure and so must be false. For them past
knowledge was simply a prejudice. In this way the concept of prejudice got the
negative meaning it still has. But was it rational that the Enlightenment philosophers
saw past knowledge as prejudiced? For what else could their predecessors have
done? Waiting until rational methods had been developed? And was all knowledge collected
in the age of Enlightenment true and unprejudiced? Of course not.
I think that we must see it this way.
Having prejudices belongs to the characteristics of man and necessarily so.
Let’s assume you are a stone age man. You have ideas about how the world is
like, such as “bears are dangerous”. Now a bear crosses your path. The bear
sees you but does nothing and goes quietly his way. So, your idea that bears
are dangerous is not confirmed. Should it be skipped as being a prejudice? Everybody
knows that bears can be dangerous, even though the statement should actually be
“all bears are dangerous under some [specified] conditions” (Just like many
prejudices could be qualified so). Anyway, I guess that the necessity of prejudices
has developed, because they were often functional and could save your life,
even if they might be false, or false in some circumstances. It was often simply
impossible or not practical to test them so you could better have them.
Actually today it is still so. For often we are in a new or only partly known situation.
Should we then first test what is the right thing to do, before we finally act?
Usually it’s not possible, so we simply act, based on the views we have, even if
they are prejudices in the sense of the pre-judgment
described above.
Having prejudices is not problematic. What
is problematic is having them and then deny that you have them and to refuse to
change them, if they are false. However, that is what too often happens. Often
we lack the facts and we cannot collect them for some reason or another, but
nevertheless we must act. Then we act and must do it in pre-judiced way. But it
is a challenge to get the facts right and to act according to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment