IS THERE A REASONABLE RELATIVISM?(responding to Sam Roggeveen's theories on relativism)(Critical Essay)

EXTREME RELATIVISM probably isn't explicitly accepted by even the most scatter-brained of postmodernists or sociologists of science, Most postmodern views certainly lead to extreme relativism, and in some cases amount to little more than extreme relativism expressed in the most indirect and pretentious manner possible, but postmodernists do their best to hide these facts from themselves, and will rarely admit to any such view when pressed, at least in public. But plenty of people, postmodern or otherwise, would profess to accept some sort of mild, limited relativism. Sam Roggeveen is one such person (see his "Relativism and the Right", in the March 2000 issue of Quadrant). Compared to the usual sort of witterings we get from postmodernists, Roggeveen's writing appears to be a model of restraint and caution, and as such will appeal to many readers of Quadrant. A good reason, then, for me to point out that his mild relativism does not hold water.

One inspiration for Roggeveen is H.G. Gadamer. According to Roggeveen, Gadamer held the supposedly reasonable view that our

 
   inescapable prejudices not only mark the "horizons" of knowledge, but are 
   the very things which make knowledge possible. Prejudice and tradition form 
   the historical web of knowledge. 

Knowledge made possible by prejudice? You could be forgiven for thinking that something has gone awry in the translation here. But no: moving on to Foucault, Roggeveen says (despite the fact that he admits to being "out of his depth" with Foucault) that what Foucault is saying is that

 
   our traditions form the very limitations of our knowledge but are also the 
   very things which make knowledge possible. 

This is either plain wrong, or in need of a very good explanation. No explanation is forthcoming, though (except for more of the same later on), but Roggeveen assures us that the doctrine is not only mild and reasonable, but one that is most agreeable to conservatives, for it is nothing more than the view expressed by the British conservative Michael Oakeshott (the italics are Roggeveen's):

 
   What Oakeshott emphasised in his definition of practices was the 
   proposition that such practices do not prescribe action, rather they 
   announce conditions to be subscribed to in acting. As such, practices or 
   traditions are a language which make action intelligible.