Overview

Cultural Relativism is the foundational concept of modern anthropology, popularized by Franz Boas in the early 20th century. It argues that no culture is inherently superior or inferior to another. To understand a practice (like polygamy, bullfighting, or veganism), you must look at it from the inside, understanding the logic and values of the people who practice it, rather than judging it by your own standards.

Core Idea

The core idea is context. There is no universal “right” way to be human. What is considered moral, polite, or rational depends entirely on the cultural framework. Therefore, we should suspend judgment until we understand the internal logic of a culture.

Formal Definition

It is the methodological (and sometimes ethical) stance that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. It stands in opposition to Ethnocentrism (judging others by your own standards).

Intuition

In the US, eating dogs is considered horrifying. In some parts of Asia, it is a traditional food source. A cultural relativist doesn’t say “eating dogs is good” or “eating dogs is bad.” They ask: “Why is it acceptable here? What does it mean to them? Why is it taboo in the US?” They realize that the US taboo is just a cultural quirk, not a universal law of nature.

Examples

  • Teenage Sexuality: In Samoa (studied by Margaret Mead), teenage sexuality was viewed as natural and stress-free. In the US, it was viewed as fraught and rebellious. Relativism shows that “adolescent angst” is cultural, not biological.
  • Time: In Western cultures, “being on time” is a moral virtue. In many Latin American or African cultures, relationships take precedence over the clock (“island time”). Neither is “right”; they are different value systems.
  • Body Modification: We might judge lip plates or neck rings as “mutilation,” while they view our plastic surgery or high heels as equally strange.

Common Misconceptions

  • It means “anything goes”: This is Moral Relativism, a philosophical position that says there is no objective morality. Methodological Relativism (used by anthropologists) is just a tool for understanding. You can understand why the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice without personally approving of it.
  • It prevents criticism: You can still criticize a practice (e.g., human rights violations), but relativism asks you to first understand the system that supports it, rather than just dismissing it as “savage.”
  • Ethnocentrism: The belief that your own culture is the center of the world and the standard by which all others should be measured.
  • Universalism: The belief that there are universal human rights or truths that apply to everyone, regardless of culture. Relativism and Universalism are often in tension.
  • Emic vs. Etic: Emic is the insider’s perspective (relativist); Etic is the outsider’s perspective (comparative).

Applications

  • International Business: Understanding that a “yes” in Japan might mean “I hear you,” not “I agree,” prevents costly misunderstandings.
  • Diplomacy: Recognizing that other nations have different definitions of “freedom” or “justice” is crucial for negotiation.
  • Human Rights: The debate over whether “Human Rights” are truly universal or just a Western cultural imposition is a central issue in global politics.

Criticism / Limitations

  • The Nazi Problem: If we can’t judge other cultures, how can we condemn the Holocaust? (Since it was “culturally accepted” by the Nazis). This is the limit where methodological relativism clashes with ethical responsibility.
  • Status Quo: It can be used to defend oppressive practices (like FGM or slavery) as “just their culture,” ignoring the voices within that culture who are fighting for change.

Further Reading

  • Boas, Franz. The Mind of Primitive Man. 1911.
  • Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. 1934.
  • Geertz, Clifford. “Anti Anti-Relativism.” 1984.