Thoughts on cultural relativism
Posted May 11th, 2012 at 06:09 PM by Tuthmosis III
A student of world history attacks a vast subject, one that can never be "mastered", only "navigated", as Patrick Manning said.(1) The thousand-and-one difficulties encountered in the process of translation - the attempt to retain meaning across languages - alone saddles any effort to comprehend the whole with an irreducible amount of uncertainty.(2) This effort is surely worth it in our emerging global age; we are one human family and, like it or not, we have to find positive ways to deal with each other. Our challenge is that we do not, in fact, handle the differences among us very well. And these differences are very real indeed.
Building a vision of a human, as opposed to a more parochial, past requires a constant willingness to examine events and developments from a variety of perspectives. This shifting in points of view is what relativism is all about. But two common misunderstandings (all too often perpetuated by those who call themselves relativists) should be clarified.
1. Relativism is not nihilism
Relativity among cultures regarding standards and expectations does not translate to the absence of these within cultures. The cultural relativist is not called upon to reject the values of his own spiritual and social home because they are not "universal". In fact, he is not even required to suspend the value judgments he may be prompted to make. The relativist does not pretend to the non-existent vantage point of complete objectivity. Relativism is simply caution, an acknowledgment that bias is a potential barrier to a true understanding of other times and peoples. When the cultural chauvinist says that all cultures are not equal he usually means that only one culture (his own, of course) is legitimate. The relativist knows this is a rather childish view and takes issue with it, but not to the equally inaccurate point of insisting that all cultures are the same (which, by definition, would no longer be relativism!).
2. Relativism is not multiculturalism
Taking the relativity of culture seriously should lead one to realize that bringing people of diverse ethnic backgrounds together for a common purpose is a world away from attempting to build a community where "standards and expectations" are not shared. A community must itself ultimately form a culture, a framework for interaction - if necessary an arena in which conflict can be managed with minimal damage to the social fabric because the 'rules' are clear to and accepted by all. It is unrealistic to suppose that a true sense of community can develop where different codes of ethics or basic notions of "right conduct" are allowed to compete with one another. Successful cultures incorporate individuals who contribute to it, and whose influence serves to enrich it rather than bring conflict.
(1) Navigating World History,Patrick Manning (2003), p. x
(2) Empires of the Word, Nicholas Ostler (2005), pp. 1-4: The prologue of this excellent book is illuminating. Before we draw any conclusions about the famous meeting between Motecuhzoma II and Cortes in 1519, we are reminded that the conversation - already hampered by the cultural gap - was filtered through two translators from Nahuatl to Yucatec Mayan to Spanish (Castilian) and back!
Building a vision of a human, as opposed to a more parochial, past requires a constant willingness to examine events and developments from a variety of perspectives. This shifting in points of view is what relativism is all about. But two common misunderstandings (all too often perpetuated by those who call themselves relativists) should be clarified.
1. Relativism is not nihilism
Relativity among cultures regarding standards and expectations does not translate to the absence of these within cultures. The cultural relativist is not called upon to reject the values of his own spiritual and social home because they are not "universal". In fact, he is not even required to suspend the value judgments he may be prompted to make. The relativist does not pretend to the non-existent vantage point of complete objectivity. Relativism is simply caution, an acknowledgment that bias is a potential barrier to a true understanding of other times and peoples. When the cultural chauvinist says that all cultures are not equal he usually means that only one culture (his own, of course) is legitimate. The relativist knows this is a rather childish view and takes issue with it, but not to the equally inaccurate point of insisting that all cultures are the same (which, by definition, would no longer be relativism!).
2. Relativism is not multiculturalism
Taking the relativity of culture seriously should lead one to realize that bringing people of diverse ethnic backgrounds together for a common purpose is a world away from attempting to build a community where "standards and expectations" are not shared. A community must itself ultimately form a culture, a framework for interaction - if necessary an arena in which conflict can be managed with minimal damage to the social fabric because the 'rules' are clear to and accepted by all. It is unrealistic to suppose that a true sense of community can develop where different codes of ethics or basic notions of "right conduct" are allowed to compete with one another. Successful cultures incorporate individuals who contribute to it, and whose influence serves to enrich it rather than bring conflict.
(1) Navigating World History,Patrick Manning (2003), p. x
(2) Empires of the Word, Nicholas Ostler (2005), pp. 1-4: The prologue of this excellent book is illuminating. Before we draw any conclusions about the famous meeting between Motecuhzoma II and Cortes in 1519, we are reminded that the conversation - already hampered by the cultural gap - was filtered through two translators from Nahuatl to Yucatec Mayan to Spanish (Castilian) and back!
Total Comments 0
