Cultural relativism

Representatives of the Kuikuro ethnic group at the closing ceremony of the ninth edition of the Indigenous Peoples’ Games (Pernambuco, Brazil)

Cultural relativism is an anthropological current that emerged in the 20th century. As a proposal of the anthropologist Franz Boas; he redefined anthropology and the concept of culture of that time, which was strongly marked by the Darwinian current.

Introduction

Cultural relativism criticizes Evolutionism and more specifically the concept of race as a parameter to evaluate or determine the cultural life of a community. Instead, it was said that each culture should be studied or interpreted from its own beliefs, values, practices, habits, etc.

Cultural relativism is not a doctrine or a univocal theoretical body. From a strictly philosophical point of view it can be defined as that doctrine – also called culturalism – that gives the first to culture in the face of other aspects of human reality. In this way, culture would be the only explanatory framework from which man can be understood, leaving this reduced everything else to mere aspects of culture or by-products.

Relativism defends the validity and wealth of all cultural systems and denies any moral or ethical absolutist assessment of them. It is opposed to ethnocentrism and cultural universalism —of a positivist nature— which affirms the existence of values, moral judgments and behaviors with absolute value and of a universal nature.

This means that cultural relativism leads to considering any aspect of another society or group in relation to the cultural standards of that group, instead of doing it from a point of view considered universal, or in relation to the valuation from other cultures. For example, he considers the different forms of marriage, such as polygamy or polyandry, relative to each cultural system. According to this school of thought, all cultures would have equal value, and none would be superior to another, since all values are considered relative.

Relativism defines culture as the totality of mental and physical reactions and activities that characterize the behavior of the individual components of a social group, collectively and individually, in relation to their natural environment, to other groups, to members of the same group and from each individual to himself.

Cultural relativism in anthropology

Relativism was established as an axiom in the anthropological research of Franz Boas, a German anthropologist, naturalized American and for this reason is also called the American School. In the first decades of the 20th century, and was later popularized by his students. With the aim of establishing a serious criticism of Tylor's evolutionism until then in force.

His first criticism of the comparative method was published in 1896 in his article The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology , according to Boas and his principles:

"All cultures are equal and comparable; there are no lower and higher cultures. Therefore it is impossible (...) to order cultures in an evolutionary scheme"

Later, in 1887, he would affirm that:

"Civilization is not absolute, but relative, and (...) our ideas and conceptions are true only as far as our civilization is concerned."

Although it was not Boas who coined the term cultural relativism for the first time, he was the first to bring this current to anthropology; same that to date is highly defended in this field of study. Another anthropological field in which relativism made its way was in linguistics, giving way to linguistic relativism.

"The romantic vision of the language as undissociable of the culture promoted by the German scholars J. Herder and W. von Humboldt in the eighteenth century gave great importance to the consideration of linguistic and cultural diversity. "

With this began the discussions based on the language of man and if this reflected differences in the brain capacity of human beings, a theory that would also be refuted by Boas.

As a methodological and heuristic device

The main assertion that supports cultural relativism is that in dissimilar societies there are unequal ethical regulations. These laws establish what is appropriate within that culture, which is why relativists consider that there would be no judgment to call "sensible"; who rates the moral code of one civilization as better than that of another, from their point of view. With its nuances, it can range from a defense of ostracism (for example, some activists from anti-globalization movements) or the lack of a code of values (Marquis de Sade, and to a lesser extent, Jonathan Swift), to just being a denial of the standardization.^{[citation required]}

Cultural relativism therefore considers the idea of believing that some cultures are superior to each other, as in fact Greco-Roman culture, Mesoamerican-Aztec culture, Mayan culture, Judeo-Christian culture, China, etc. have been considered and are considered among different circles. from the point of view of the values they promote. In addition, cultural relativism alerts us that our tendencies and inclinations are conditioned by what we have learned in the social environment in which we grew up, and thereby seeks to encourage us to maintain an accessible position, leaving aside the presumption that what we think and do is the right thing.

Independently of the criticisms to which this philosophical theory is subjected, it should also be underlined as an interesting aspect that there are coincident values between cultures, as is the case of sincerity when communicating, the prohibition of homicide, etc..; otherwise, the existence of society would be threatened. All of the above allows the relativists to argue that the contradiction lies in our more or less dogmatic systems, not in our values.

We can also say that cultural relativism challenges the idea that there are true beliefs, common to various societies. That is, it affirms that all beliefs are different and can be true depending on the society.

In fact, relativists argue that there is no law that encompasses the universal: there are only different ways of thinking within cultures, further stating that our own morality would not have a special category, considering that it turns out to be only one among many.

Cultural relativism is really a mixture of various thoughts. It is important to separate the different elements of the theory, because when analyzed, some parts turn out to be correct, while others appear to be wrong.

Among these points, several ideas should be highlighted as to why relativists consider that different cultures should be respected:

• Societies are different in terms of their moral education; since each people, group or society has different forms of education that are right for them.

• Each society proposes as correct what is good for them according to their moral beliefs; as it well mentions, each culture is different.

• Cultural relativism therefore considers it impossible to say what criterion is best within several societies, because they are totally different morally; this follows with the same thing, this current considers that something should not be approved only because within a society it is seen as well done, considering another society where it is considered the opposite.

• Cultural relativism considers that there is not a single truth that encompasses absolute truth within all truths. From this last point the relativists try to explain why all societies are different, with their authorizations and limits, according to their moral beliefs.

According to this philosophy, none of the cultures could properly allow us to say which one should be superior and why, since what is correct for some will contrast with another human group for which it is not. For example, quoting Alain de Botton, "nobody should judge the actions of other societies, just because they are different from ours, we have to be tolerant and accept that we are simply all different".

Relativism and human rights

Cultural relativism does not pose a legitimization of apparently contrasting or extreme cultural manifestations (in the case of the confrontation of the relationship between all cultures), but rather predisposes one to explain these manifestations according to the logic of the group in which they belong. that manifestation takes place. While the defenders of relativism maintain that it is an attitude of knowing all the implications and contradictions that a custom raises within the same cultural system, its critics argue that it is actually a legitimization of certain specific practices (such as discrimination against women, mutilation of the clitoris, the death penalty as a form of punishment, rape, human sacrifice, pedophilia, slavery, etc.), which occur in a particular culture. Cultural relativism would be, according to these criteria, incompatible with the existence of universal human rights.

According to the American philosopher, James Rachels,

"the only reasoning that prudently could be used to censor the actions of any society included our own, is to question whether the practice promotes or limits the well-being of people whose lives are disturbed by it."

Criticism of relativism

For some of the most important critics against this current, such as the Catholic Church, Ayn Rand or Emmanuel Kant, cultural relativism is absolute relativism or nihilism with respect to cultural values; for others (Michel de Montaigne) everything is relative except the morality and ethics of the respective culture, and still for others cultural relativism is simply, although taking sides with some universal vision of ethics or culture, nor sectarianizing respect.

the common error of the universalist and the pluralist is that both seem to be placed on a "neutro", extra-cultural plane - to conclude that cultures are measurable or that they are immeasurable would need to know them all and have them all before the eyes. On the other hand, if I see the problem from the position of the cultural subject that I am - and I never cease to be - what I think is: my own culture is a "privileged" variant of the "universal culture", it is actually the universal culture that can exist for me; it is from it, and conceived like this (i.e., not conceived as a closed and finished system, "particular" and fully transparent for myself). By revealing what the other culture has in common with mine, it also reveals what they have of different, and this is not definitively inaccessible to me, because it comes to fill a "empty" or a possibility that silently persisted in my own culture.