As we have seen, cultural relativism argues that there is no true way to be good or moral across different cultures. Therefore, it follows that what people consider morally right in one culture can’t be said with certainty to be better than something similar in another culture. This view implies that because there is no […]
As we have seen, cultural relativism argues that there is no true way to be good or moral across different cultures. Therefore, it follows that what people consider morally right in one culture can’t be said with certainty to be better than something similar in another culture.
This view implies that because there is no universal standard of morality, it is not important to strive for such a thing. After all, if there is no clear winner, then why should you?
However, this perspective ignores an essential element of ethical thinking- the importance of individual values. This article will discuss how these two concepts are related and what it means when they clash.
Cultural relativists often argue that trying to apply Western morals globally is wrong because individuals in other cultures may hold value systems that promote unethical behavior. These behaviors include things like discrimination, oppression, and violence.
The term “ethnocentric” was first used in 1904 to describe people who believe that their culture is better than others. Due to this bias, they may discriminate against or even oppress other cultures.
A few decades later, in the 1970s, anthropologists coined the term cultural relativist to refer to individuals who feel that no one culture has an advantage over another. Like ethnicists, these people may also put down or negatively compare cultures that are different from theirs.
However, unlike ethnocentrists, cultural relativists do not believe that their own culture is inherently superior to all others. They believe that there are universal truths about how humans work and thrive as a species, and that all cultures have strengths worth exploring.
Thus, contrary to what many cultural relativists claim, there IS something special about Western culture — at least through its history.
A major aspect of this theory is that different cultures have different standards for what constitutes appropriate behavior, and these differences are not always positive.
This view was most famously expressed by the British anthropologist Edward Westermark in his book The Natural History of Human Group Formation. In it he describes two types of groups: cohesive groups with strong internal norms and systems like an army where there are clear roles and expectations.
And then there are voluntary associations such as sports teams or religious institutions which do not require much consistency in their members.
Westermark called these last typeofgroups “voluntary association” because they rely more heavily on good feelings than on enforced unity to keep people coming back, but he also noted that they can easily turn into groups with exploitative goals if enough people join them.
He argued that we should be careful about applying our own norms to others too quickly, even ones that seem very similar to us, because we may not know all of the factors behind their decisions.
Developing cultural relativist attitudes means understanding that there is no right or wrong way to live your life, only different ways. This applies not just to culture-focused things like eating habits, but also politics, religion, and other areas of life people seem to get more entrenched in their beliefs as they age.
There are many examples of how we develop our own biases due to past experiences and conversations. These experiences shape what you believe about certain topics and influence whether you agree with some policies or not.
We’ve discussed before why it can be difficult to apply cultural relativism to racism, sexism, and other forms of bias. That is because these concepts focus mostly on differences in cultures rather than individual perceptions.
Ethnic groups come in all shapes and sizes which makes it harder to emphasize the importance of looking beyond one’s own group.
There is an argument that culture is the root cause of many social problems. This theory, known as cultural relativism, asserts that all cultures have similarities which contribute to similar problems and similarly solve these same problems.
The proponents of this theory believe that changing one’s own culture and society will not necessarily help you, but teaching others their culture can be used to improve themselves or help them overcome their social issues.
This way of thinking was popular in the 1960s when some people believed that capitalism was the problem creating larger corporations with bigger profits that promote inequality. Today it is more common to hear about how racism is the culprit for most of our social ills.
Both are quite ridiculous concepts because neither says that your culture or society is wrong, they only say that other cultures and societies are too!
Cultural relativists agree that there are universal qualities like love and friendship, for example, but they differ from ethnocentric thinkers by believing that what makes these relationships work is dependent on where each person comes from.
It may seem contradictory at first, but both theories share a link in their reasoning. Both assume that things that seem good are good, and things that seem bad are bad, and then try to determine why they feel the way they do.
Ethnic studies focus on why certain groups develop strong bonds while other groups develop weaker ones, and sometimes no bond at all.
In our increasingly globalized world, there is constant exposure to new cultures. This vast diversity of different cultures can be both a good and bad thing for individuals.
It benefits you by exposing you to new ideas and concepts, as well as changing how you perceive “normal” things.
On the other hand, cultural relativism can go too far.
Ethnocentric thinking, or putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, has become much less common due to globalization. But before we had computers and technology that connected people across distances, this was very prevalent.
People would think about themselves in terms of their own culture and what norms and values they held true, and not necessarily those of others.
This can create many problems.
In our increasingly globalized world, there is a tendency to value how different cultures are from your own. This is called cultural relativism.
However, this can be done poorly. For example, if you believe that all religions are equally valid, then you may not recognize any religion as true or bad.
Similarly, if you think that no culture has good values, then you won’t appreciate the ways in which they do.
Both of these positions are examples of ethnocentric thinking. You are focusing only on yourself and your beliefs, and dismissing the worth of others due to their culture.
Ethnic groups come in many forms- geographical (for instance, Americans vs Europeans), national (French vs Germans, etc.), religious (Muslims vs Christians) and socioeconomical (rich vs poor).
Extending your moral reasoning to include more than just yourself means acknowledging that some things are okay for someone else but not for you.
In addition to having different cultures, people also have political ideas that differ from one another. This is particularly true in societies where there are more than one major culture present. For example, there are mostly European countries here so Europeans have different politics than Americans do or Australians do.
In some cases these differences can become very polarized. Some groups develop strong beliefs about why things are bad for society and what needs to be done to make changes. They get increasingly heated as they apply their beliefs towards various issues and ideologies.
This effect becomes even stronger when some group’s ideology is threatened by something else. A classic example of this is when American conservatives believe international organizations such as The United Nations should not interfere with national policies.
Another common cause of polarization is when an important part of someone’s identity is attacked or undermined. People who feel hurt or invalidated may add extra emotional intensity to their arguments to try to defend themselves or attack the source of pain.
Another important factor in creating ethnocentric beliefs is understanding how culture influences economic behavior. People are, by nature, social animals who thrive on relationships and connections with other people. This influence of culture on society comes down to two things: what types of cultures individuals are exposed to and how these cultures condition individual perceptions of self and others.
As mentioned earlier, media messages can have a powerful effect on societal norms and behaviors. For example, studies show that when Americans watch TV shows or movies with large amounts of violence, they are more likely to acts of violence themselves. The same goes for entertainment stories containing sex or profanity – those themes contribute to developing attitudes about sexuality and values related to money.
Furthermore, cultural products influenced by a particular ideology (i.e. “culture”) often appeal to an audience that shares this ideological background. For instance, films and television programs which discuss issues such as racism, class inequality, or gender oppression may gain popularity because they resonate with viewers who agree with this perspective.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, popular media that promote hedonistic lifestyles or value equality over individuality are limited in their appeal. Because they are not shaped by a shared conception of what equals success, these experiences may be frustrating for some audiences.
Germany’s federal cabinet has approved a sweeping legislative reform that grants intelligence agencies new offensive cyber powers and mandates strict AI oversight.
As the era of effortless digital aspiration wanes, creators are turning to hyper-strategic engagement tactics to stay relevant in an oversaturated market.
A new survey reveals that most UK smokers incorrectly view vaping as equally dangerous as smoking, stalling efforts to lower tobacco-related health risks.
