Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - Appendices - 1. A Methodological Note on Valuations and Beliefs - 1. The Mechanism of Rationalization
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Appendix i. Note on Valuations and Beliefs 1029
correct. As we observed in the Introduction,® cultural unity in America consists in
the fact that most Americans have most valuations in common, though they are
differently arranged and bear different intensity coefficients for diflferent individuals
and groups. This makes discussion possible and secures an understanding of, and a
response to, criticism.
In this process of moral criticism which men make upon each other, the valuations
on the higher and more general planes—^referring to all human beings and not to
specific small groups—are regularly invoked by one party or the other, simply because
they are held in common among all groups in society, and also because of the
supreme prestige they are traditionally awarded. By this democratic process of open
discussion there is started a tendency which constantly forces a larger and larger part of
the valuation sphere into conscious attention. More is made conscious than any single
person or group would on his own initiative find it advantageous to bring forward at
the particular moment. In passing, we might be allowed to remark that this effect
and in addition our common trust that the more general valuations actually represent
a “higher” morality—is the principal reason why we, who are convinced democrats,
hold that public discussion is purifying and that democracy itself provides a moral
education of the people.
When thus even the momentarily inopportune valuations are brought to attention,
an element of indecision and complication is inserted. A need will be felt by the
person or group, whose inconsistencies in valuations are publicly exposed, to find a
means of reconciling the inconsistencies. This can be accomplished by adjusting one
of the conflicting pairs of valuations. If the valuation to be modified is on the less
general plane, a greater moral harmony in the larger group is brought about. Specific
attitudes and forms of behavior are then reconciled to the more general moral
principles. If, on the other hand, an attempt is made to change or reinterpret valuations
which are more general in scope and most of the time consciously shared with all
other groups in society, the deviant group will, see its moral conflict with other
groups becoming increasingly explicit (that is, if the other groups are not themselves
prepared to change their general valuations toward a moral compromise). This process
might go on until discussion no longer becomes feasible. In the extreme case such
a moral isolation, if the dissenting group is powerful enough, may break the peace
and order of society and plunge a nation into civil war.
In the short-run day-to-day conflicts, usually no abrupt changes of valuations will
occur. The need for reconciling conflicting valuations brought into the open through
public discussion will, for the time being, only result in quasi-logical constructions.
In the very nature of things, these constructions must be fantastic, as they represent
an attempt to reconcile the illogicalities by logical reasoning.
The temptation will be strong to deny the very existence of a valuation conflict.
This will sometimes bring in Its wake grossly distorted notions about social reality.
There is a sort of social ignorance which is most adequately explained as an attempt
to avoid the twinges of conscience. It is, for instance, an experience of every social
scientist, who has been working on problems of social policy and has taken some
interest in people’s reactions, that the strongest psychic resistance is aroused when
an attempt is made to teach the better situated classes in a society about actual lower
Section 2.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
