Cultural relativism

[Marcus Marulus]

Are you a cultural relativist?

If yes, then are you a soft or a hard cultural relativist? In other words, do you think judgments about other cultures should be made sometimes or never?

If no, do yo still think cultural relativism has any good sides or you think it is entirely and totally detrimental?

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Are you a cultural relativist?

I feel addressed by this topic, because of my own words in another thread. ^^

I wouldn't be so sure that I am a cultural relativist. As I understood it, cultural relativism does not hold culture in a particularly high regard. The idea seems to be that one culture is expendable in the presence of another, and that culture can be no road to ultimate truth. If that is a correct characterisation of cultural relativism, I am not one cultural relativist.

If yes, then are you a soft or a hard cultural relativist? In other words, do you think judgments about other cultures should be made sometimes or never?

I don't think that judgments about other cultures should be passed as if were it by a moral imperative. The question you put here implies to me that in cultural relativism may also be lurking the idea that we should compare cultures to find out which one is the best culture, as if we could just choose our culture. I guess it has come to that pretty much on the individual level in this day and age of globalism, but in an ideal scenario I really wish that culture could once (again?) become a strong Gemeinschaft, a cultural togetherness of the nation. I am certainly not cultural relativist if it means to be in favour of the spread of the best culture, much in the way that the spread of representative democracy is happening today. I loathe it and I condemn it as ethnocide.

If no, do you still think cultural relativism has any good sides or you think it is entirely and totally detrimental?

I think it depends on why you compare cultures or, for that matter, spiritual beliefs. I was, since long, interested in the esoteric project, in seeing the order beyond individual forms, and I believe that also cultures and spiritual beliefs can be the subjects of this grand undertaking.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

I wouldn't be so sure that I am a cultural relativist. As I understood it, cultural relativism does not hold culture in a particularly high regard. The idea seems to be that one culture is expendable in the presence of another, and that culture can be no road to ultimate truth. If that is a correct characterisation of cultural relativism, I am not one cultural relativist.

As I see it, cultural relativism is closely related to the culture/civilization dilemma or dialectic. The modern concept of civilization has its origin in the European Enlightenment and is universalistic in nature, pretending to be advocating some universal and general principles of the organization of human society, based on reason and valid for all peoples of all times. Societies and cultures are hierarchized according to their living up to the ideal of civilization: those which did not accept the principles of the Enlightenment are thought of as "backward", whereas those which accepted them as "progressed" (the idea of progress is central to this thinking). The underlying assumption is that principles of civilization are to be enforced in the whole world, sooner or later. They are seen as being objectively good, whether or not one likes them, and local cultural customs should not stand in the way of the spread of civilization. In this context, civilization is equalled with the Western European Enlightenment principles. The concept of civilizations(s), in plural, arose later.

This kind of thinking forms the basis of the modern ideological globalism and Westernism, with Liberal Democracy coupled with parliamentary representation, individual liberties, eudemonism (the attainment of happiness by the biggest possible number of people), secularism (to varying degrees), Capitalism and economicism being considered by today's power elites and intellectuals (with or without quotation marks) as objectively good and applicable everywhere. Marxism/Socialism is also an outgrowth of this idea, only with lesser emphasis on individual liberties, thus you have state Capitalism, instead of private ownership.

The concept of culture, on the other hand, arose from the spirit of German Romanticism and insists more on local specificities and customs, langauge etc, which are reflections of the Volksgeist (Herder). Moral principles and actions of individuals in various cultures should be viewed primarily in the context of the respective cultures and not judged on the basis of the allegedly universal moral and social ide(al)s of the Western European Enlightenment. Out of this conception arose Boasian anthropology and the Levi-Straussian view that every culture ought to be seen as an autonomous "structure" in itself, with its own intrinsic laws and relationships.

This is only a rough division. There were of course overlappings. Enlightenement was not confined to France and Britain only, Germany had a variety of its own as well. Whereas in France the myth of noble savage found its very strong literary representatives (Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Chateaubriand). There were also mixtures between these two ideas, different shades of grey etc.

Very extreme cultural relativism, taken as a dogma, leads up to moral realtivism as well.

Originally Posted by Gnist

I don't think that judgments about other cultures should be passed as if were it by a moral imperative.

It should not be taken as moral imperative, because it can beget imperialistic self-righteousness.

Originally Posted by Gnist

The question you put here implies to me that in cultural relativism may also be lurking the idea that we should compare cultures to find out which one is the best culture, as if we could just choose our culture.

Is it? I think that the essence of cultural relativism - in more extreme forms - is that all cultures are equal.

Originally Posted by Gnist

I guess it has come to that pretty much on the individual level in this day and age of globalism, but in an ideal scenario I really wish that culture could once (again?) become a strong Gemeinschaft, a cultural togetherness of the nation.

I wish that too, but the idea of the globalist civilization is directly opposed to any Gemeinschaft or organic society/community.

Originally Posted by Gnist

I am certainly not cultural relativist if it means to be in favour of the spread of the best culture, much in the way that the spread of representative democracy is happening today. I loathe it and I condemn it as ethnocide.

The present-day "moral imperialism" as practiced by the USA and the entire "West" (see: war for the introduction of democracy into Iraq and similar) is the end-result of a radicalized version of the Enlightenment principle of "universal values".

Originally Posted by Gnist

I think it depends on why you compare cultures or, for that matter, spiritual beliefs. I was, since long, interested in the esoteric project, in seeing the order beyond individual forms, and I believe that also cultures and spiritual beliefs can be the subjects of this grand undertaking.

Perennial Tradition? That is a very interesting project.

[Sergius]

Yes, I am a cultural relativist. I see it as closely linked with ethnopluralism.

Not that it makes any difference in the world we're living in, what I have to say about one thing or another.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Marulus

As I see it, cultural relativism is closely related to the culture/civilization dilemma or dialectic. The modern concept of civilization has its origin in the European Enlightenment and is universalistic in nature, pretending to be advocating some universal and general principles of the organization of human society, based on reason and valid for all peoples of all times. Societies and cultures are hierarchized according to their living up to the ideal of civilization: those which did not accept the principles of the Enlightenment are thought of as "backward", whereas those which accepted them as "progressed" (the idea of progress is central to this thinking). The underlying assumption is that principles of civilization are to be enforced in the whole world, sooner or later. They are seen as being objectively good, whether or not one likes them, and local cultural customs should not stand in the way of the spread of civilization. In this context, civilization is equalled with the Western European Enlightenment principles. The concept of civilizations(s), in plural, arose later.

This kind of thinking forms the basis of the modern ideological globalism and Westernism, with Liberal Democracy with parliamentary representation, individual liberties, eudemonism (the attainment of happiness by the biggest possible number of people), secularism (to varying degrees), Capitalism and economicism being considered by today's power elites and intellectuals (with or without quotation marks) as objectively good and applicable everywhere.

This served as the raison d'etre for European conquest of the world -- they were bringing religion, salvation, progress, and enlightenment to the heathens and savages. The gunships and the genocide were all for a noble purpose. In our day, we can see this with the American occupation of Iraq: oil is never once mentioned. The whole idea was supposedly to bring "democracy" to Iraq and get rid of an "authoritarian and evil dictator." Never mind that 5m have been displaced and maybe 1m killed, and parts of the country are now effectively in the Stone Age. A well-informed (and short) book by Immanuel Wallerstein, titled "European Universalism", goes into this hypocrisy in more depth.

As for the question: Yes, I am a relativist. It is hubris to think that any one culture is unique, universal, and exceptional. The culture will vary with the people, the terrain, and the circumstances. I agree with Herder.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Are you a cultural relativist?

If yes, then are you a soft or a hard cultural relativist? In other words, do you think judgments about other cultures should be made sometimes or never?

If no, do yo still think cultural relativism has any good sides or you think it is entirely and totally detrimental?

I think judgements should be made all the time about other cultures and I think cultural "perspectivism" is a necessary part of making those judgements. I just read this quote of Ortega y Gasset and thought of this thread:

"Many African tribes practice the ritual of the murder of the king. Such custom seems absurd, but the historian will not have concluded his task if he does not make us glimpse that it is not; that, given a certain psychological scheme, given a certain idea of cosmos, the ritual murder of the king is so "logical", so full of sense, as the parliamentary system. This is the antinomy of the historical view. We have to take distance from the other to understand he is not like us; but, simultaneously,we need to approach him to discover that, however, he is a man like us, and his life has sense."(”Las Atlántidas,”The Atlantis”).

Brief introduction to the thought of Ortega y Gasset

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I just read this quote of Ortega y Gasset and thought of this thread.

Good to know that OyG had read his Fraser!
Golden Bough, Sir James George F., that is. That's probably where he got his African ritual Kingship stuff from.

I'm in the middle of a Russian translation of his Folklore in the New Testament, at the mo, and I might as well share this gem of a comment from the introduction to it by the editorial team of the 'Atheistic Library', "This English (or more accurately Scottish) scholar ..." Oh Dear!

I am a practising cultural relativist, as I have to be to survive as an ex-pat. I'm all for a bit of give and take, but find this is only really feasible within situations of super-ethnic commonality, as I can find with the Russians. Living with Chinese or Bantus would probably be too much of a strain for me. There are certain nasty practices that I can't overlook or keep my mouth shut about - dog-eating, genital mutilation and so on...

[Freebooter]

I was under a different impression, I guess. I thought cultural relativism wasn't so much about the passing of judgement, which, to me, is a natural thing, but more so about the understanding that different people have different customs and traditions from our own, and by extension, a certain respect for their customs and traditions is warranted.

Under this definition, I am definitely a cultural relativist and also, to an extent, an isolationist. The perfect world for me would be constituted by different people who, for the most part, keep to themselves while respecting others.

[Lutiferre]

Cultural relativism could mean the relative viewpoint of cultures. You could also call that cultural neutrality, which is probably a good thing when it comes to anthropological research. But if it is implied to mean cultural individualism, as opposed to cultural collectivism, then it becomes a liberal and nihilistic political viewpoint.

[Marcus Marulus]

Cultural relativism

[Engelbrecht]

As a Christian I can´t accept any extreme form of cultural relativism. I believe in a divine and universal law or order - the Christian. That in turn gives that I belive in objective good VS evil and right VS wrong.

The only possible way to meassure a culture that I can see is possible is therefor to what degree a culture is in harmony with the universal law. A culure that is in harmony with the universal law therefor is more worth or better than a decadent and perverted culture.

So I guess that I´m not a cultural relativist.

On the other hand I recognize every peoples right to their unique culture. But that is another question and doesn´t mean that I will have to agree with that specific culture or try to push my culture on them.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

As a Christian I can´t accept any extreme form of cultural relativism. I believe in a divine and universal law or order - the Christian. That in turn gives that I belive in objective good VS evil and right VS wrong.

Cutural relativism should not degenerate into moral relativism. Regrettably, some people confound these two concepts.