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 - 2. Theoretical Critique of the Concept “Mores”
<< 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 1031
to attempt to correct popular beliefs by subjecting them to rigorous examination in the
light of the factual evidence. This educational objective must be achieved in the
face of the psychic resistance mobilized by the people who feel an urgent need to
retain their biased beliefs in order to justify their way of life.
If this educational eflfort meets with success, the illogicalities involving valuations
become exposed to the people who hold them. They are then pressed to change
their valuations to some degree or other. For if popular beliefs depend upon valuations,
as we have shown, the valuations also depend upon the beliefs in our civilization bent
upon rationalism. When supporting beliefs are drawn away, people will have to
readjust their value hierarchies and, eventually, their behavior. As the more general
norms in our culture are given supreme moral sanction, this means—if we assume that
this “valuation of the valuations” is upheld, and moral cynicism counteracted—that
the valuations on a more specific level (often called “prejudices”) will yield to them.
This is the reason, and the only reason, why we generally assume that improved
knowledge will make for “better” citizens. Facts by themselves do not improve
anything.
There is a question of terminology which should be touched upon, as it is
not without importance for our scheme of thinking. The term “value” has, in its
prevalent usage, a loose meaning. When tightened it is generally taken to refer to
the object of valuations, rather than to the valuations themselves. Unfortunately it has
a connotation of something solid and homogeneous while our hypothesis is that the
valuations are conflicting. We shall avoid using the term “value.” The term “attitude”
has the same connotation of solidity. Too, it is often used to denote beliefs as well
as valuations. When used in this book “attitude” should be understood as simply
a convenient synonym for valuation.®
2. Theoretical Critique of the Concept “Mores”
We must voice our grave skepticism toward the simple explanatory scheme concern-
ing the role of valuations in social life typified By William Graham Sumner’s concepts,
“folkways” and “mores.”** Since his time these concepts—or one of their several
synonyms—have been widely used by social scientists and have, in particular, deter-
mined the approach to the Negro problem. The formula will be found to be invoked
with some regularity whenever an author expresses his attitude that changes will be
slow, or, more particularly, that nothing practical can be done about a matter. It is
closely related to a bias in social science against induced changes, and especially against
all attempts to intervene in the social process by legislation. The concept of mores
actually implies a whole social theory and an entire laissez-faire (“do-nothing”)
metaphysics,^ and is so utilized.
Leaving aside for the present the political connotations of Sumner’s construction,
and focusing our interest only on its usefulness as a scientific tool, our main criticism
“This paragraph will, perhaps, explain why the author has not been able to avoid the
term “valuation** though knowing well that it is not widely used in America. The term
has been used, however, by John Dewey in several of his works, by Charles H. Cooley in
his Social Process (1918), by Robert M. Maciver in his Social Causation (1942), and
probably by others.
‘’William Graham Sumner, Folkways (1911, first edition 1906).
*See Appendix 2, Section 3, and Chapter i. Section 11.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
