cultural relativism

[lostminotaur]

This topic has been a source of quite some discussion in my anthropology classes. There are many cultures that violate individual human rights and mask such behaviour as being cultural. Any opposition to such behaviour is condemned as being ethnocentric. I am just curious to know what people think of behaviours that are blamed on culture, yet continue to transgress the boundaries of human rights. The most obvious examples are treatment of women in some islamic countries and in some african countries. I am not interested in dissecting different religions and who is right and who is wrong, because that would definitely be too simplistic.

should everything be taken from a cultural relativist perspective or should they be addressed when they cross human rights boundaries at the cost of being labelled ethnocentric?

 

[James R]

This was discussed at length quite recently in another thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32015

Don't be put off by the title of the thread or the first few pages of posts. Read the discussion in the second half of the thread between myself and Lucysnow, where we bat the issue of cultural relativism around a bit. You might like to add your thoughts.

 

[okinrus]

The most obvious examples are treatment of women in some islamic countries and in some african countries.

You have to include the entire society, including muslim women, and not just those in power. Actions are not mistreatment when both parties, the women and the men, deem it not mistreatment. For example, if a muslim women was forbidden to drive her car and she did not feel it was mistreatment, then the relativist view would be that it's not mistreatment. Another example would be the caste system in India. The lower caste might agree that they are mistreated, while the upperclass might disagree. But to determine this one would have to look at the entire culture.

Usually, however, what we consider mistreatment almost always applies to other cultures. The difference, though, is that with other cultures there are other values, cultural taboos that conflict with the natural will of the person. For instance, in some pre-muslim areas(its in arabia nights) when the wife died before the husband, the husband was killed. Of course, we cannot deny that the husband may have had a will to live, it was merely secondary to fullfilling the traditional sacrifice.

 

[SpyMoose]

Actions are not mistreatment when both parties, the women and the men, deem it not mistreatment.

During the Korean war there were American prisoners of war taken who were frequently beaten savagely while being induced to admit how awful America was, and how amoral their mission in Korea was. These people were mentally broken and forced to obey the men with the clubs who beat them, and when the war ended, and the POWs released, there were many who chose to stay in Korea. By your argument, okinrus, were these POWs mistreated?

 

[okinrus]

During the Korean war there were American prisoners of war taken who were frequently beaten savagely while being induced to admit how awful America was, and how amoral their mission in Korea was. These people were mentally broken and forced to obey the men with the clubs who beat them, and when the war ended, and the POWs released, there were many who chose to stay in Korea. By your argument, okinrus, were these POWs mistreated?

Well, these men certaintly did not have full consent over either their mind or what they said. What I said before depends on what the men "feel." It's conceivable that someone could be killed without feeling anything; thus, this argument presumes that both parties are in a rational state of mind. Nevertheless, I'm certain that the Koreans knew they were mistreating the prisoners, even if the prisoners were brainwashed into disbelief.

 

[SpyMoose]

I'm just trying to make the point that brainwashing could be a cultural institution. For instance, those women may think of themselves as strictly inferior subjects of men, not because its what they want to think, but because they are surrounded with men who simply insist that its so, and have been known to kill women who get too far out of line. Is this not an abuse, just because its the way things are and the women can't say they don't like it, because they would associate saying something like that with death?

 

[Tiassa]

No. No title today.

My thing with cultural relativism is that it depends on why the relativity is invoked. C/R, to my education, has been a response to certain brands of racism and supremacism; it was only the latter half of the twentieth century that humanity started to get used to the idea that we're all the same and our different colors and ethnicities did not make us inherently different insofar as one group was entitled to supremacy over the other.

It is, much like "Political Correctness," often problematic, but PC isn't PC to some people; it's just an evolution of speech. Kind of like not calling a person stupid for believing in God. Sure, it's true, but all humans are stupid in some way or another--for not a one of us is perfect--and it's left to the individual to decide how relevant or important that stupidity is. Cultural relativism isn't a term I use often because I don't have occasion to single it out for examination. Every once in a while, something twists my conscience in a nasty way, but I often think of it more in terms of moral, and not cultural relativism.

Clitoridectomy? Cultural relativism is important because it's not just a ridiculous, extraneous, mutilation we object to, but rather a practice that has become somehow inextricably entwined with societal function. I recommend Jomo Kenyatta, whose Facing Mount Kenya casts a far more subtle rendering of the issue of clitoridectomy than anyone addressing the issue in the modern political tone is willing to consider. To me it's not that it's right, but it's like removing a barbed fishhook from your flesh: there is a right way and a wrong way to undertake this necessary and necessarily painful extraction.

And cultural relativism can help keep you focused on that difference.

 

[okinrus]

I'm just trying to make the point that brainwashing could be a cultural institution. For instance, those women may think of themselves as strictly inferior subjects of men, not because its what they want to think, but because they are surrounded with men who simply insist that its so, and have been known to kill women who get too far out of line. Is this not an abuse, just because its the way things are and the women can't say they don't like it, because they would associate saying something like that with death?

I don't really understand it that way. If you asked a women whether she was being mistreated, the answer would be "yes." Yet if you asked her why, then she would say she is inferior. The two don't really coincide. Mistreatment is an emotional, physical, instinct, while the rationale uses deductive facilities formed by the culture.

 

[Hastein]

Cultural relativism is a form of nihilism, removing all distinction between what is healthy and what is not. If you want to understand a society on sociological basis, cultural relativism is vital. If, however, you plan to intergrate new cultural concepts into your own it is best to follow the Japanese model: pick and choose, never tolerate.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I hate when culture is used as an excuse for destroying the earth. ie japanese overfishing. Thats bullshit, they are completely ruining the planet, every man woman child grasshopper and plant has the right to be pissed off about that, and every culture on earth should be forcefully restricting japan's seafood consumption. With violence if necesarry. Its an incredibly serious problem that no one seems to fully understand.

But cultures infringing on human rights IS none of our business. Because human rights aren't a real thing. A culture has its own rules and standards that its people are subject to. There are no "human rights" carved into a stone that ALL members of the human species possess. A person BELONGS to its culture as much as an ant belongs to its colony. Apparently your culture has some kind of fancy human rights, this means that people could complain about your human rights being infringed upon while you were within your culture.
But you can't complain about someone in another culture not being treated to the standard your culture demands people within your culture are treated.
Just because your culture came up with some set of rights people have has nothing to do with any other culture and they have no obligation to take any notice of how your culture operates.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

ps: At the same time, if the way some culture acted angered another culture enough to make them attack the other culture as a whole(ie war) I would have no problem. Even if the reason was as silly as "that other culture doesn't treat its people right".
Because there are no intercultural rules in reality(there might be some written somewhere by the UN or something but they aren't real).
Every culture for itself. They are all seperate competing entities.
Within each culture there are rules for the individuals to obey, like each lion pride or wolf pack, but the rule for the human species as a whole is survival of the fittest, and thats it, like every other species.

 

[lostminotaur]

This was discussed at length quite recently in another thread:

Thanks James. I will check that thread out when i have a little bit of time to spare. It is quite a long thread.

Okinrus

You have to include the entire society, including muslim women, and not just those in power. Actions are not mistreatment when both parties, the women and the men, deem it not mistreatment.

Of course you have to take a holistic perspective whilst analyzing the culture, but you have to use a sectoral approach as well. It would be foolish to say that all muslim women would feel mistreated. At the same time, you have to take in the fact that women were conditioned from the day they were born that they have a specific place in society and they shouldn't cross those boundaries. So unacceptable actions taken by men wouldn't seem bad for those women because that's what they were taught to believe. Just because someone doesn't feel mistreated isn't sufficient ground to say that its okay.

For example, if a muslim women was forbidden to drive her car and she did not feel it was mistreatment, then the relativist view would be that it's not mistreatment.

that's not entirely correct. A relativist perspective would identify the reasons for the absence of feelings of mistreatment. Study of indoctrination is a key factor.

Another example would be the caste system in India. The lower caste might agree that they are mistreated, while the upperclass might disagree. But to determine this one would have to look at the entire culture.

In this case, there is no ambiguity. The lower caste was definitely exploited by the upper caste. The origins of the caste system show a really cohesive system of social stratification that allowed the society to function smoothly. This was quickly eroded due to the exploitative nature of human beings in power.

Spymoose

I'm just trying to make the point that brainwashing could be a cultural institution. For instance, those women may think of themselves as strictly inferior subjects of men, not because its what they want to think, but because they are surrounded with men who simply insist that its so, and have been known to kill women who get too far out of line. Is this not an abuse, just because its the way things are and the women can't say they don't like it, because they would associate saying something like that with death?

Ditto... that is definitely one of the reasons.. but a further analysis into power structures and religious beliefs would provide a better understanding.

Tiassa

Clitoridectomy? Cultural relativism is important because it's not just a ridiculous, extraneous, mutilation we object to, but rather a practice that has become somehow inextricably entwined with societal function.

Exactly. The first reaction to clitoridectomy is of horror in most parts of the world. One of the books that i've read on it is called 'Aman'.. i forget the name of the author. The book has many problems, but it definitely gives an insight into the cultural practices that involve such a procedure. I will check out the book that you've suggested.

Every once in a while, something twists my conscience in a nasty way, but I often think of it more in terms of moral, and not cultural relativism.

so would you propose that morality and cultural relativism would be synonymous to an extent?

Okinrus

I don't really understand it that way. If you asked a women whether she was being mistreated, the answer would be "yes." Yet if you asked her why, then she would say she is inferior. The two don't really coincide.

Here you're making an assumption that women would only feel mistreated because they feel they're inferior. Inferiority is a valid reason to feel mistreated. Minority groups in north america feel mistreated because they are considered inferior. This has to do with systemic and institutional racism that is reflected in individual racism. In the case of those women, there is a systemic and institutional sexism which manifests in individual sexism.

Mistreatment is an emotional, physical, instinct, while the rationale uses deductive facilities formed by the culture.

I would argue that mistreatment is NOT what you are suggesting it to be. Mistreatment is any abusive treatment, whether it is physical or social. Feeling mistreated because you cannot drive due to your sex isn't just a physical or emotional instinct. It is a rational reaction. of course the women will feel sour about it, but that is an emotional manifestation of the rational problem.

Dr. Lou Natic

But cultures infringing on human rights IS none of our business.

Then whose business is it?

Because human rights aren't a real thing.

Can you elaborate?

There are no "human rights" carved into a stone that ALL members of the human species possess.

What about the Declaration of Human Rights? I know it is just a piece of document that is there as a trophy, but it does paint a pretty picture which i would argue is achievable.

But you can't complain about someone in another culture not being treated to the standard your culture demands people within your culture are treated.

I had to read this sentence a few times because it didn't make any sense. I think i kinda got what you're saying. Cultural relativism isn't about complaining about other cultures. It's trying to understand why certain behaviours occur in various cultures and if they should be allowed under the guise of cultural differences. The concept tries to exercize empathy to an extent. I am just asking if 'culture' is strong enough reason to justify actions that are harmful to a certain group of people, even if they consent to such abusive behaviour.

but the rule for the human species as a whole is survival of the fittest, and thats it, like every other species.

I am not sure if you understand the concept of 'survival of the fittest' from a darwinian perspective. Survival of the fittest isn't literal, in the sense that people who are the fittest or have access to the most resources survive. Survival of the fittest refers to reproduction. The fittest who are able to reproduce, will in eventuality have a continuation of their species.

Every culture for itself. They are all seperate competing entities.

On the contrary. Cultures aren't just separate competing entities. There is a mixture of cultures in many countries and people are exposed to a variety of cultures, at least in north america. You're making it sound like each culture is trying to compete with an opposing culture to survive.

At the same time, if the way some culture acted angered another culture enough to make them attack the other culture as a whole(ie war) I would have no problem. Even if the reason was as silly as "that other culture doesn't treat its people right".

I have yet to come across a war waged solely due to the reasons stated by you. If you know any, let me know.

Because there are no intercultural rules in reality

How about rules of politeness, courtesy, hospitality. Would you want another culture to treat you with hostility because of your separate cultural background?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Dr. Lou Natic
Then whose business is it?

The people within that culture.

Can you elaborate?

Could you begin trying to explain how it is a real thing? Untill then there is no need to elaborate.

What about the Declaration of Human Rights? I know it is just a piece of document that is there as a trophy, but it does paint a pretty picture which i would argue is achievable

The fact it isn't mindlessly followed is evidence that its irrelevent and not a natural set of behaviour for the human species. And I would argue for that reason it is far from achievable.

I had to read this sentence a few times

Intentional

because it didn't make any sense

It made perfect sense.

I think i kinda got what you're saying. Cultural relativism isn't about complaining about other cultures. It's trying to understand why certain behaviours occur in various cultures and if they should be allowed under the guise of cultural differences. The concept tries to exercize empathy to an extent. I am just asking if 'culture' is strong enough reason to justify actions that are harmful to a certain group of people, even if they consent to such abusive behaviour

The behaviours of other cultures don't need to be justified by you or anybody other than the culture itself. If the behaviour continues it seems it is being emphatically justified continuously.

I am not sure if you understand the concept of 'survival of the fittest' from a darwinian perspective

Cute.

Survival of the fittest isn't literal, in the sense that people who are the fittest or have access to the most resources survive. Survival of the fittest refers to reproduction. The fittest who are able to reproduce, will in eventuality have a continuation of their species

Really? Oh man, thanks for the heads up
I didn't give reference to darwin because I wasn't talking about natural selection(directly).
I was literally talking about survival of the fittest, which is a natural law within many social predators.
I mean there is no set ettiquette in human behaviour when it comes to intercultural conflict. There is a set ettiquette not to beat your mother and to cooperate with your family and group, and by extension now to your society.
But one culture does not have any obligation to tolerate another.
They compete and establish territories and then must defend their territory etc.
This is not unique in the natural world. And its just the way it is, you would be hardpressed to convince me intercultural conflict is "wrong". An attempt would also need to include an explanation as to why battles between hyena packs over territory are "wrong".

On the contrary. Cultures aren't just separate competing entities. There is a mixture of cultures in many countries and people are exposed to a variety of cultures, at least in north america. You're making it sound like each culture is trying to compete with an opposing culture to survive

Multicultural societies are essentially one culture, all be it one with high innercultural tension.
They don't need to compete to survive, but they can compete to improve life or whatever. It doesn't matter. The point is there is no reason not to be hostile towards eachother. And thus they naturally do tend to be hostile towards eachother. Don't look at how you wish people could behave, look at how humans naturally have behaved in history.
We are a combative species. Thats what we are, and there is therefore nothing wrong with it. The fact we have been means its probably good for us.

I have yet to come across a war waged solely due to the reasons stated by you. If you know any, let me know

I'm just saying, whatever reason one culture fights another is irrelevent, they can and there is nothing wrong with it happening.
I was saying although its lame to try and interfere with another culture's ways, there is nothing wrong with attacking another culture as a whole, for whatever reason.
It would be better for you to grab an army and attack whatever culture it is that has behaviours you dissapprove of, than to police them and domesticate them in the way that you are indicating you want to.

[QUOTE}How about rules of politeness, courtesy, hospitality. Would you want another culture to treat you with hostility because of your separate cultural background?[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how what i want is relevent in anyway.
This is ethics morality and justice, so I'm talking about what I see as the ethics regarding this subject.
You are obviously one of the "treat others as I would like to be treated" people.
I don't base my ethics on such flimsy artificial grounds.
Every social species has a natural code of ethics. I look at unmolested human behaviour, and see that as the "correct" behaviour for the human species.
Each culture differing slightly.
I go about figuring out human ethics the same way I go about figuring out the ethics of any animal.
I am saying it is not incorrect or unethical for cultures to battle.
I don't think its unethical for lions to fight to the death, I'm sure the loser didn't "want" to be savagely mauled to death. That has no sway on what I see as the ethical code for the species.

 

[lostminotaur]

Dr. Lou Natic

I don't think you quite understand what i am trying to have a discussion about. The only reason i asked you a few questions based on your response was to understand why you were making certain assertions. I am not interested in arguing if human rights are real or unreal or watever. I am not interested in knowing why cultures fight with each other or treat each other with hostility.

What I am asking is perfectly encapsulated in my opening post. I am gonna quote it again just to make myself clear.

should everything be taken from a cultural relativist perspective or should they be addressed when they cross human rights boundaries at the cost of being labelled ethnocentric?

I am asking a question from a sociological and anthropological point of view. This refers to how many aid organizations go into developing countries and start projects that ultimately fail because they have an ethnocentric perspective to start off with. Practices of other cultures are a key component of social sciences to understand how people live and behave in different parts of the world. It doesn't mean that you have to go there and change their culture or meddle with it. Studies and research projects are undertaken to understand cultures.

The problem comes when certain actions are seen as abusive even when the abused individuals do not know that they are being abused. This was being analyzed by okinrus and spymoose. That is what i want to discuss.

 

[Repo Man]

Ethnocentrism is our default state. One of the benefits of education is to reduce our insularity and parochialism.

But I think we humans are working our way toward a global culture.

Obejective standards to measure cultures by are very difficult to agree on. I generally go by more freedom=better.

I wonder how many of those who would object to trying to speed cultures away from practices like genital mutilation were opposed to trying to coerce South Africa into abandoning Apartheid?

I very strongly disagree with post modernists who maintain that science is just "another way of knowing", and is no better than the creation myths of the Yanomamo indians. Science works, and that is a very strong validation.