Common Sense
One of the things I’ve never understood is the belief that I should follow, without question, what common sense tells me to do or to believe. What exactly is common sense that it has such a claim upon me?
Common sense is an ambiguous term. It means different things to different people in different contexts. It is generally based upon a socialized hermeneutic which a culture has imparted upon its people, so that they engage the world with the same postulates about the world, and end up coming to the same conclusions. In this way, common sense is not value neutral, but rather, is aimed at reproducing the mores of a given society so that it will be passed on to the next generation. Claiming we should follow its dictates, because its beliefs are held in common by most people, is a nice way to mask how those dictates were established so that we do not question whether or not they are valid.
Since cultures are human, with human failings, common sense works to justify those failings. Thus, common sense in the American situation tells us that promiscuity is fine. Social norms are used to justify this: we are called to a life of liberty to pursue those goods which make us happy. For many, that is a life in pursuit of sex. If someone questions this, they are asked why they are so un-American. Common sense is, for the American, based upon the hermeneutic of individualistic freedom, and anything which would limit an individual’s freedom is to be rejected. Of course, for the Christian, such common sense must be rejected. Christ came to teach us the way of the cross, the dying of the self, the exact opposite of our common American values.
It is not, however, just in America where common sense is to be rejected. All societies, where they fail to meet justice, socialize so as to justify their injustice. All societies will have their forms of common sense which will run counter to the cross. In this way, Christianity will always appear as foolishness to those who judge things by the dictates of common sense. The cross, which is seen as foolishness to the world, is my hermeneutic to the world. Cool me foolish, if you wish. I would be blessed if I were Christ’s fool, because “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor 1:27 RSV). But don’t try to justify yourself based upon some notion of “common sense” — if you do, you just are asking me to deconstruct that common sense to see the unjust political reality behind it.
Comments are closed.
I prefer phronesis.
Kyle — well, it is a kind of wisdom, prudential wisdom, and I think it would also go against the grain of “common sense.”
Henry:
Maybe I’m just getting old. In the America where I live, “pursuit of [promiscuous] sex” loses big-time to “pursuit of individual property.” This is not to say that Americans are prudes, or to deny that at least some of the addiction to acquisition feeds an underlying sex addiction. Consider, however, how many of us work long hours or multiple jobs even when that obviously interferes with a satisfying sex life.
Another measure is to consider which seems more alien to the typical American: (1) A couple that doesn’t “do” recreational sex, who live in a nice house, with two big cars and five children (planned using NFP) who all wear nice clothes, or (2) a childless couple who wear thrift-store clothes, live a visibly frugal life in a low-rent apartment and donate half of their income and much of their energy to charity?
I personally know families who fit one or the other description.
When I imagine what the latter couple is like in private, it’s hard to imagine them being sex fiends. But when I imagine couple number one, it’s easy to imagine them obsessing about their income and status or fretting about too-high taxes. It seems natural to say that the “nice clothes” family shares a more “common” sense with most Americans.
Frank
I was trying to use it as an example, and it is the one which is all over the media and much clearer as being socialized into us through our music, movies, and television. But I agree there are other examples such as the desire to fulfill one’s greed at the expense of one’s neighbor. So I think your example is also true. To say one has a right to such a sex life in our culture doesn’t mean people will exercise it, or think it is their primary pursuit, just that it is accepted as a part of our society. To question modern sexuality [im]morality is to go against common sense. And I would also add the sex doesn’t have to be married couples — indeed, it is free of the idea of marriage, and it is at best, multiple instances of temporary monogamy. Certainly we would also agree the Church’s understanding of “safe sex” is contra the “common sense” view of “use a condom.”
I’m not sure to what extent your definition of “common sense” lines up with how most people use the term.
You seem to be using it in terms of “what everyone says” or “what is commonly accepted”. When discussing common sense at a Catholic, it seems almost inevitable to wax Chestertonian, since it was a quality he praised so often, and I feel sure that GK would have said that much of what you are describing as common sense is instead nonsense which is common.
It seems to me that Chesterton used the term in a sense almost analogous to natural law — and that this comports pretty well with other period uses of the term. Common sense, in this regard, is contrasted with the artificial intellectual constructs which, however satisfying and brilliant in their own right, do not in fact relate to reality as God made it and we experience it.
Would you say that the sense in which Chesterton talked about common sense was simply a wholly different meaning than the one you are critiquing? Or is his idea of common sense part of the problem which you are describing?
Henry:
Sexuality is so obvious in our culture because it is presented as a sexy/not-sexy duality. Though agreement on the dividing lines are not universal, everyone agrees that some appearances and behaviors are sexy while others are not, and media exploit that duality with little regard for God’s purpose in making us sexual beings. Pursuit of material wealth, however, flies under the radar because is never presented in this way: There is no acquire/not-acquire duality, just “sensible” and “foolish” ways to acquire.
This goes beyond “desire to fulfill one’s greed at the expense of one’s neighbor” which, I would argue, is not universal to the American “common” sense. Rather, “desire to fulfill common ambition at the expense of one’s true self” is the universal and invisible corrosive in America’s “common” sense because for us it has no visible counterpoint. I’m reminded of a line from Pink Floyd’s Welcome to the Machine: “What did you dream? It’s alright we told you what to dream.”
It takes a lot of courage to question common sense and dream our own dreams.
Darwin
When talking about common sense, one will notice that what is “common sense” will differ from community to community. It will also differ according to the time in which we are discussing those things. Philosophers have always held “common sense” to be problematic because it is “what is common” and therefore, what is “commonly accepted.” While what is commonly accepted can be true, it is often understood in an imperfect sense. And it is often something which is not true. What is common sense in 3rd century India will be quite different from what is common sense in 21st century America. My critique should be read more in line with Lewis’ criticism of being “normal” in Screwtape Proposes a Toast than issues of natural law. Common sense is not about natural law, but about how we understand the world as a community.
I’ve had many people tell me various elements of Christianity go against “common sense.” I’m not disturbed by it, just as Plato isn’t.