In Praise of Doubt

May 11, 2009
Sociologists Berger (The Social Construction of Reality
) and Zijderveld (The Abstract Society
) inveigh against the dogma of “isms” that replace humor with certainty and thoughtfulness with blind action. Between the extremes of fundamentalism and moral relativism sits the doubter, perched on liberal democracy, which the authors describe as a three-legged stool, balanced on the state, civil society and the market economy to promote debate and dissent. Berger and Zijderveld illustrate the obvious perils of extremism, but are less adept at navigating moderation. They apply their “doubt” premise to abortion, capital punishment and immigration policy, and come to inoffensively moderate political positions, but their tepid recommendations lack appeal; as the authors admit, “The agnostic position is by definition a weak one.” What recommends doubt as a concept is that it defies stringent characterization. Yet in both style and approach, the authors belie the vigorousness of their position—and an important position it is.

August 1, 2009
Mobile and urbanized modern society has given rise to what sociologists Berger and Zijderveld call a state of plurality, in which people of diverse belief systems live in close proximity and through normal social interaction influence one anothers thinking. The long-term tendency of this process of cross-contamination of belief systems is relativization, for what were for doctrinaire believers matters of fate now seem mere choices. Thence was born relativism, the position that all belief systems are equal. Unfortunately, staunch relativism becomes a prejudice against all statements of belief (except for the relativists; witness, Berger and Zijderveld say, the Marxist). The most consequential reactions to relativism are called fundamentalisms and originated as recently as the early twentieth century. Since the certainty believers value seems to arise out of an innate capacity for morality, the answer to the question implicit in Berger and Zijdervelds subtitle is to doubt reasonably all but liberal democracy and human rights. Berger and Zijdervelds lucid, philosophically informed exposition compensates grandly for the perhaps disappointing familiarity of their conclusion.(Reprinted with permission of Booklist, copyright 2009, American Library Association.)