Yesterday I mentioned one of my Number One Rules when it comes to reasoning about norms: Don’t reason from exceptions. If we reason from exceptions, we will end up a society without norms altogether for it naturally follows that in an imperfect world we will always be able to find at least one exception.
There are a few different reasons why exceptions always find their way to the surface of the conversational puddle. Sometimes, we are just trying to find the boundaries of a norm. We are trying to discover if it is an Absolute Immutable Truth, or rather a helpful rule of civility within our own culture. Other times, we really are discussing a specific, personally known exception, and we want to assess how to handle the situation in light of the norm. And then there are the times when this is merely an attack on the norm itself, an attempt to use exceptions to abolish the rule.
Such defensiveness may stem from the perception that establishing norms is an automatic judgment and condemnation of the nonconforming. This reveals cause for being careful when establishing norms, and not turning the establishment of normative principles into an activity of hyperlegislation and attempt to control our fellow man.
Defining a norm is not a form of judgment, even though it may seem to be so upon initial consideration.
Let me illustrate with a fairly non-controversial example.
First, the norm would be: Parents should raise their own children. This is a norm that few would argue with, even if they had different definitions of how much time and interaction is required by the word “raise.” The idea is that parents shouldn’t farm out their responsibility.
However, comma.
I don’t find any fault {and I doubt you do, either} with the hearing son of deaf-mute parents being sent to live with his uncle so that he can learn to speak properly with his voice.
So here we have an exception: the deaf-mute parents are unable to teach their son to speak, something of which he is naturally capable.
We have a solution which does not conform to the stated norm: the parents are not raising their own child, but are having a relative raise him, for a time at least, so that he can be taught something they, by virtue of physical defect, are unable to teach him themselves. And the thing they are unable to teach him is not something ancillary, like gardening or playing the piano, but something essential to his manhood as a hearing person: speaking.
To be sure, we wish those parents could figure out how to do this themselves. But let’s say they think this is the only way, and the uncle is a good, kind, God-fearing man. Could we not say that the parents are acting in the best way they can considering their circumstances? I do not think that the norm condemns them.
Let me repeat: the norm does not condemn them.
Moreover, their need to “farm out” their parenting for a time, so to speak, does not invalidate the norm. These parents would likely agree that the normative behavior is to raise your own child, and that to willfully refuse to do so is aberrant behavior. But their situation is extraordinary, and so is their response.
It seems to me that this teaches a few things. First, norms do not necessarily condemn exceptions. Second, exceptions do not invalidate norms. Third, family {and also friends and church family} can help ease those who find themselves in an exceptional circumstance. Exceptions call for grace, wisdom, assistance, and, most importantly, love.
5 Comments