He Cultural relativism Is the idea that each culture or ethnic group should be evaluated on the basis of their own values and norms of behavior and not on the basis of other cultures or ethnic groups.
The basic principle from which it emerges is simple: judgments based on experience and experience are interpreted by each individual in terms of their own culture (Herskovits, p.15).
Cultural relativism starts from the idea that society changes rapidly, so that more and more cultures have a closer interaction with each other. This interaction can be positive or negative, depending on the level of sensitivity and respect people have for other cultural groups.
According to this current of thought, much of human knowledge tends to be socially conditioned. In other words, thought is determined by society, and is also directed according to what the social group indicates (Mannheim, 1936).
Characteristics of cultural relativism
Cultural relativism is essentially an approach to nature and the role of values in culture. Some of its characteristics are:
- It uses fresh and cross-cultural data that have been obtained by studying the societies' underlying value systems, in order to argue, based on facts, on the differences between cultural perspectives and thus give a conclusion about the state of the morality.
- It affirms that culture is flexible and has many possibilities of choice within its framework, because it is recognized that the values held by a particular people do not imply that they will be a constant in the lives of successive generations of the same group.
- It points out that culture is not a closed system of rigid molds, to which the behavior of all members must conform.
Types of cultural relativism
There are several categories in cultural relativism, such as conceptual, historical, objective, ontological, metaethics, among others. However, there are three classic types that are: the methodological, the cognitive, and the moral and ethical.
- He Methodological : It has been the most controversial to be accepted as a type, but finally, by means of works of anthropology, psychology, medicine and law, which bases their bases on methodological characteristics, is considered as an important element to complement investigations.
- He cognitive : It embraces the premise that in all cultures there is a world of interrelated knowledge, which has also been highly controversial, since the neurological bases are presumably universal, but learning can be generated by cultural and external components Which may vary according to the rules imposed.
- He Moral and ethical : That is given by more intrinsic aspects and elements of personality that are enhanced with what is learned in the environment. That is to say, if you live in a society where different situations are accepted and well seen, it is possible that when you change your environment you will be exposed to criticism and judgment.
This is why it all comes down to morality and ethics in dealing with everyday situations, events and relationships that may come, and that is why the inclusion of rules and norms denotes importance and complexity.
Ethical factors and cultural relativism
According to the idea of cultural relativism, there are important ethical factors that emerge from this current.
To begin with, according to authors of cultural relativism, the way of viewing society and its culture does not imply the absence of a system of moral values to guide behavior. Rather, it suggests that each society has its own moral code to guide its members, but that these values are important to those who live by them, although they may not be accepted from another perspective and elsewhere (Herskovits, p. 31) .
The non-differentiation of this point leads some ethical to think that the elements that are within the cultural relativism have no moral nature, however, for this current, any society that does not have these standards is denominated anarchic.
Therefore, according to these ideas, every culture has its own moral code of behavior for the members of its society, without which no society would be possible. These codes are values, but they are only important and meaningful to each society, and can not and should not be used to measure the morality of another other than yours.
Individual ethical behavior depends on culture, and is given by the way in which the individual has socialized to behave in a social context. Each society has its own process of interrelationship, its own rules of conduct, its ethical-moral system, and a code that individual members rarely question.
Interculturally, any act that falls outside the limit of accepted variation is judged in terms of preexisting standards, and is rejected or reconciled. What they do in a society is measured radically in relation to good and bad behavior.
Many proponents of ethics believe that the concept of cultural relativism threatens the discipline of ethics because, if values are relative to a given culture, this means that there are no universal moral parameters by which people's behavior can be judged .
All of the above leads to the second problem, the failure to understand the difference between absolute and universal. Absolute values are fixed values that do not allow variation, but differ from culture to culture, and from time to time. Whereas universals are those values that transcend cultures (Herskovits, p.32).
Each society has its moral code, which carries unquestionable sanctions for its members. But once an individual moves to another society, he finds a series of differently conceptualized values, expressed differently, but with equally strong sanctions.
Debates on cultural relativism
Cultural relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first glance, it seems quite plausible. However, like all these theories, it can be evaluated by submitting to rational analysis and when analyzed, we find that it is not as plausible as it seems.
The first thing to note is that at the heart of cultural relativism there is a certain form of argument. The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue, based on facts, on the differences between cultural perspectives, to enable a conclusion about the state of morality. Some examples of this include:
- The Greeks believed that it was bad to eat the dead, while the Callans believed it was right.
- The Eskimos, up until the 1930s and 1940s, saw nothing wrong with infanticide, while the Western cultures they met in the south considered it to be murder, and it was completely immoral.
Like these, there are innumerable examples indicating that these arguments are clearly variations of a fundamental idea. Therefore, for cultural relativism, there is no objective"truth"in morality. Good and evil are just matters of opinion that vary from culture to culture.
Reviews
William Graham Sumner cited some of the consequences that could arise from its establishment:
- It could no longer be said that the customs of other societies are morally inferior, one would have to stop condemning other societies simply because they are different and avoid criticizing other less benign practices.
- As each culture has its own beliefs and purposes, the others will not be able to interfere as they are frowned upon in relation to other places.
- Cultural relativism prevents us from saying that any practice is wrong, or which is better than another, because each place is taken seriously and its participants are immune to criticism.
Evolution of morale
Another aspect is how the idea of moral progress is questioned. Usually, it is thought that at least some changes in society have been for the better, although others are not escaping that of course may have been changes for evil.
A clear example of this would be, as throughout most of Western history, the place of women in society was narrowly limited. They could not have property, vote or work in an office, except for a few exceptions, they were not allowed to have paid jobs and were generally under the almost absolute control of their husbands.
While it is true that each culture should not be judged or criticized, it is also part of the process to incorporate new elements, set new standards, and build a better society based on the parameters set by its members.
Cultural relativism, in all cases, must be clearly distinguished from the concepts of individual behavior, which would deny all social controls over behavior. Compliance with the group code is a requirement for any aspect in life.
However, according to these ideas, rights should not be imposed, since the effectiveness of the use of relativism is given by respect for the differences of each individual.
According to their authors, history teaches that it is important to discern in human civilizations the different ways in which man has devised to satisfy his needs, which has been necessary to consider issues such as those that have been raised.
For this reason, they consider that there are many cultures where there is no rigidity about good and evil, since they recognize that they are only extremes of a continually varied scale between these poles that produce different degrees of gray.
For this current it is fair to think that society itself has made some moral progress, although it admits that it is still imperfect and needs reforms.
CONCLUSIONS
Cultural relativism warns of the danger of assuming that all preferences are based on some absolute rational standard, because the practices of each culture are peculiar in other societies, so everything will depend on who analyzes it.
Therefore, everything will be according to how you look at it and the ability to keep an open mind in various situations, stretch your imagination to determine how much you are able to allow, and what would be rejected instantly. This rejection can be, as the relativists say, only a matter of what is custom in the particular society of the individual.
The use of these strategies seeks to allow the human being to be more tolerant and respectful to those situations contrary to the one experienced by each individual, due to the existence of multiple differences between one culture and the other. If a flexible position is maintained, it will be possible to accept or ignore what is contrary to the pre-established in the society of each one.
Cultural relativism begins with the valuable insight that many of our practices are just cultural products. So it is wrong to conclude that because some practices are so, all must be so.
The cataloging of a fact as correct and incorrect has been highly debated, so in cultural relativism there is nothing absolute, rigid, or inflexible, everything will depend on the method by which it is explored, or the perception with which it is seen By others, and the feelings it generates in them.
Feelings are not necessarily perceptions of truth, they may be nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning. Thus, when it is suggested that some element of the social code is not really the best, and the individual are instinctively resisting the suggestion, cultural relativism invites him to pause and remember to have a more open mind.
One can therefore understand the attractiveness to some of cultural relativism, for although the theory has serious shortcomings, it is an attractive theory because it is based on a genuine view that many of the practices and attitudes that are considered so natural are Really cultural products.
References
- Rachels, James (2007). Introduction to moral philosophy.
- Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture.
- Melville Herskovits, Cultural Relativism (Random House, 1972).
- O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Bantam Books, 1979).
- Michael F. Brown (2008). Cultural Relativism 2.0.
- Cook, John W. 1999. Morality and cultural differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Harrison, Simon (2003). Comparative Studies in Society and History.