On the misuse of cultural relativism
Jun. 1st, 2006 11:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootCultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is a useful mental tool, especially in the field of anthropology but also in day to day life in a global world. It can be boiled down to the reminder that not all cultures are the same, and the conceptual categories of one may well not be what you need to understand another.
This can also be rendered, especially by frustrated anth teachers, as: it's not yours, you are not at home, do not try to make this other place/time/people into your own, because they're NOT! (Case in point of failure to remember, or even consider, this: Wallis Budge's translation of the Book of the Dead.)
This is, as I say, especially useful for people from a dominant, privileged or mechanically/technologically advanced culture who are going off to study people who are not any or all of those things. It keeps the arrogance of understanding (more accurately, assumed understanding) in check.
The thing is, what cultural relativism does is make sure a person does not either a) assume they know all the whys and wherefores or b) dismiss everything unfamiliar to them as stupid and barbaric.
It does not mean that one does not make judgements about what one encounters.
Cultural relativism, especially of the non-anth-specific philosophical variety, does not mean "Oh, it's their own way, they're not from our culture, we can't judge", because that's bullshit. Of course we can judge. And so can they. And so we all do. Pretending otherwise won't help, and the notion that "outsiders have no right to judge" is exactly the kind of thing that prevents both legislation and action against violence inside the family. We have every right to judge, all of us, about everything.
The responsibility of an intelligent and thoughtful person is not to cease judging. It is, rather, to keep in mind that being outside a situation makes some things easier to see and others harder. And that the thing in question might be one of the ones that's harder. An intelligent and thoughtful person has a responsibility to always be willing to look at new information and take that information into account, no matter how well they think they understand the situation already.
An intelligent and thoughtful person also has a responsibility to evaluate the information, of course, taking into consideration the source and occassion.
It's always a balancing act. Always in motion. Judgements that are stable, that have stopped, that are satisfied... those are the ones that are categorically mistaken, not neccessarily in content but in process. Those are the judgements that are insupportable, because time always goes on and you never know when new information will come to light that might change the whole question into something else.
The fact that good judgements are never final, never absolute and never finished does not let anyone off the hook from making them.
Or changing them.
What cultural relativism does is remind us that we might be wrong. Not that we are certain to be wrong, when we are judging someone else's cultural activities, because having grown up with something or not grown up with it does not confer automatic and eternal rightness or wrongness. But that we might be wrong, and should remember where we're standing.
Because another way to boil down cultural relativism is: be aware of your own position.
No one is unbiased, whether inside or outside of a situation. Nor is it always clear where the in/out line lies. This is the other reason no one can make absolute judgements, because every judgement comes from a very specific life experience.
That does not invalidate the judgements in question.
The trick, in all cases, is to be aware of the interest one may have when judging a given cultural practice because one is female or white or the employee of an oil corporation or a dog owner. Be aware of the interest and ask oneself, not whether one's position is influencing one's judgement because of course it will, but instead whether it is obscuring one's ability to view and consider all the information involved. That is what one must strive to avoid, not the making of ongoing judgements as best one can.
In the end, this can be a powerful tool in making judgements and then choosing where and when to act on them. What it should never be is an excuse to avoid the responsibility, as a thinking human being, to have opinions on how human beings act towards each other.
Cultural relativism is a useful mental tool, especially in the field of anthropology but also in day to day life in a global world. It can be boiled down to the reminder that not all cultures are the same, and the conceptual categories of one may well not be what you need to understand another.
This can also be rendered, especially by frustrated anth teachers, as: it's not yours, you are not at home, do not try to make this other place/time/people into your own, because they're NOT! (Case in point of failure to remember, or even consider, this: Wallis Budge's translation of the Book of the Dead.)
This is, as I say, especially useful for people from a dominant, privileged or mechanically/technologically advanced culture who are going off to study people who are not any or all of those things. It keeps the arrogance of understanding (more accurately, assumed understanding) in check.
The thing is, what cultural relativism does is make sure a person does not either a) assume they know all the whys and wherefores or b) dismiss everything unfamiliar to them as stupid and barbaric.
It does not mean that one does not make judgements about what one encounters.
Cultural relativism, especially of the non-anth-specific philosophical variety, does not mean "Oh, it's their own way, they're not from our culture, we can't judge", because that's bullshit. Of course we can judge. And so can they. And so we all do. Pretending otherwise won't help, and the notion that "outsiders have no right to judge" is exactly the kind of thing that prevents both legislation and action against violence inside the family. We have every right to judge, all of us, about everything.
The responsibility of an intelligent and thoughtful person is not to cease judging. It is, rather, to keep in mind that being outside a situation makes some things easier to see and others harder. And that the thing in question might be one of the ones that's harder. An intelligent and thoughtful person has a responsibility to always be willing to look at new information and take that information into account, no matter how well they think they understand the situation already.
An intelligent and thoughtful person also has a responsibility to evaluate the information, of course, taking into consideration the source and occassion.
It's always a balancing act. Always in motion. Judgements that are stable, that have stopped, that are satisfied... those are the ones that are categorically mistaken, not neccessarily in content but in process. Those are the judgements that are insupportable, because time always goes on and you never know when new information will come to light that might change the whole question into something else.
The fact that good judgements are never final, never absolute and never finished does not let anyone off the hook from making them.
Or changing them.
What cultural relativism does is remind us that we might be wrong. Not that we are certain to be wrong, when we are judging someone else's cultural activities, because having grown up with something or not grown up with it does not confer automatic and eternal rightness or wrongness. But that we might be wrong, and should remember where we're standing.
Because another way to boil down cultural relativism is: be aware of your own position.
No one is unbiased, whether inside or outside of a situation. Nor is it always clear where the in/out line lies. This is the other reason no one can make absolute judgements, because every judgement comes from a very specific life experience.
That does not invalidate the judgements in question.
The trick, in all cases, is to be aware of the interest one may have when judging a given cultural practice because one is female or white or the employee of an oil corporation or a dog owner. Be aware of the interest and ask oneself, not whether one's position is influencing one's judgement because of course it will, but instead whether it is obscuring one's ability to view and consider all the information involved. That is what one must strive to avoid, not the making of ongoing judgements as best one can.
In the end, this can be a powerful tool in making judgements and then choosing where and when to act on them. What it should never be is an excuse to avoid the responsibility, as a thinking human being, to have opinions on how human beings act towards each other.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 09:01 pm (UTC)I think this topic is a fascinating one. My background in anthropology is different--I preferred bones and fossils to living cultures--but the same applies. I don't know how many times I'd get pissed because people tried to interpret cultural evidence into something they deemed "civilized" just because they felt that the site was too recent to be as wild as it seemed. On the flipside, the interpretation of neadertal-as-savage-barbarian frustrates the hell out of me, because the homo sapiens of the same era are considered to be cultural and wonderful.
I'd like to read a polished essay, if you write it. ^_^
no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 09:17 pm (UTC)And very much yes. I find myself less and less willing to define any /culture/ as barbarian, though every culture in existence seems to have /practices/ I find barbaric.
*laughing* I've been on a real essay-roll, lately. Maybe there was something in the latest package of coffee.
The trick is to find internal criticism of those things
Date: 2006-06-02 12:40 am (UTC)Then it ceases to be "We (modern) (white) (Europeans) (Americans) (Christians) are *so* much more civilized than thpse ancient foreign brown heathen savages" and "I agree with So-and-So of Such-and-Such, the respected teacher of ancient wisdom, where he says that X/Y/Z is an abomination and should be prohibited. You know you're ignoring your own wisdom tradition selectively, just the way we do, right?"
Re: The trick is to find internal criticism of those things
Date: 2006-06-02 12:48 am (UTC)