At philosophy club last fall, we discussed a summer field-study of a small handful of philosophy students who traveled to Professor Kalumba’s home country of Uganda. The goal of the field-study was to see if there was any truth to the claims of an anthropologist who dwelled with a tribe of Africans for almost 30 years, and published a book, in 1959, on his view of their philosophy. But for this post, it doesn't really matter what he concluded, I was more shocked by their experienced way of going through life.
The Bantu are a tribe with very traditional beliefs. To this day, they belief that your ancestors and (their idea of) gods are influencing factors on almost every event in their life. For instance, they belief that if one were to get bit by a mosquito that there were two causes. The first cause, would be the mosquito biting them, but the final cause would be either god or an ancestor inflicting this upon them. They believe that for every event, there is a reason behind it, viz. there is a supernatural power manipulating the natural world. They see the current events in their life as directly resulting from either a past trespass or good deed done to the gods or their ancestors. When there is an ailment, they go to a type of witch-doctor who prescribes some actions that would appease their ancestors or god and wash out their previous trespass.
Recently, a cousin of professor Kalumba was sick. She went to a M.D. and found out she had cancer. Then she went to a witch-doctor and the doctor told her to do so and so. 2 months later, she died. But this is not a problem for the tribe. The blame is put on the cousin. The witch-doctor didn't fail, because he simply has to say that the cousin didn’t do all he prescribed.
But here is the rub, this doesn't bother them. They have no concern that there could have been another result. They don’t use experience to try different methods of curing. They have no knowledge of the scientific method (or similar methodologies). They ‘know’ their beliefs are the right ones, and that there is no other way. The witch-doctor certainly doesn’t keep records of who he saves and who he kills. What happens was meant to happen.
But don’t they realize that there may be other ways of achieving their goals? The answer is no. Their world-view completely directs their beliefs. It simply is what there is. They have no reason to question it. We feel that the reasonable thing to do is to get medical help, but to them, the rational thing is to go to the witch-doctor and do what he says. Their world-view dictates reality and what is rational.
This has been a huge eye-opener for me. Its simple, but has had a profound impact on me. To me, it shows that what is rational, is subjective, and relative to the individual subject and their social location. Rationality isn't this objective ideal, but rather a personal approach to life. For some, that may be a no-brainer, but it certainly wasn't to me. As a result, this story has dramatically affected how I tend to view the different situations I'm presented with.
Posts
"We feel that the reasonable thing to do is to get medical help, but to them, the rational thing is to go to the witch-doctor and do what he says. Their world-view dictates reality and what is rational."
ReplyDeleteJust because they feel it is rational doesn't make it rational. Their world view does dictate what they think is rational, but worldviews can be inadequate and false. Some people in Arkansas are brought up with a worldview that includes a 6000 year old earth. Does that make it rational to conclude that the earth is, indeed, only 6000 years old?
A few more examples: Theism and Atheism are mutually exclusive. At least one is incorrect, false. Even more obvious, either moral subjectivism or moral realism is false.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteHow are we going to rationally argue with them? And how are they going to rationally accept our rationality. I think Dr. Kalumba would be the first one to say that it is near impossible to do so.
Rationality isn't always about right in wrong (in regards to your logical disjuncts). Based on the right forms and doses of evidence (remember the luck stuff we discussed in epistemology?), I can be completely justified in believing something that in fact turns out to be false.
Not that I have to get into it, but Hume goes as far as to argue that there is no rational justification for saying scientific inference (including results-based decisions) is any better than the different forms of superstition... As long as we use the very method itself to judge itself, all forms of prediction are the same.