Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cultural relativism - An attempt at conceptual analysis
Cultural relativism - An attempt at conceptual analysis
Relationship between culture and behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Wade Davis, a famous anthropologist, writer, explorer, and other professions, stated “The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.” The quote means that because a person is not like you or your culture does not make them inferior. It makes them unique in their own way. On the other side of the spectrum is David Eller who stated “Insularity is the foundation of ethnocentrism and intolerance; when you only know of those like yourself, it is easy to imagine that you are alone in the world or alone in being good and right in the world. Exposure to diversity, on the contrary, is the basis for relativism and tolerance; when you are forced to face and accept the Other as real, unavoidable, and ultimately valuable, you cannot help but see yourself and your 'truths' in a new - and trouble - way.” What he meant is that because some people are isolated they think that their culture is the only culture out there and when they later learn about other culture they are forced to accept the reality that there are other cultures. That each culture has their own characteristics. The difference between cultural relativism verses ethnocentrism and which one attitude is more favorable in today’s society than the other.
According to dictionary.com the definition of cultural relativism is:
The concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong (cultural relativism, 2014).
The founder of this principle/attitude is Franz Boas, considered fat...
... middle of paper ...
...ents-for-against/
Cultural relativism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com 21st Century Lexicon. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cultural relativism
Ethnocentrism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnocentrism
Franz Boas. (n.d.). Franz Boas. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://www.nndb.com/people/861/0000975
Macionis, J. J. (2012). Sociology: Fourteenth Edition (International Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Rachels, J. (n.d.). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phl
William Graham Sumner. (n.d.).American Sociological Association: William G. Sumner. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://asanet.org/about/presidents/william_
It almost appears that the cultural relativist denies a person’s ability to empathize with others, on top of ignoring the fact that people have been migrating and assimilating within different cultures since people existed. People seem to posses a great ability to understand one another. It seems odd to assume that what people have been doing for centuries would suddenly be lost to them. As I stated earlier, people largely have the same values, the differences appear in the expression of these values. I believe that these similar values allow people to understand other cultures even without being from within
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
Each culture has a certain level of ethnocentrism which can have positive and negative consequences. Ethnocentrism provides a feeling of unwillingness to change one’s culture or specific institution by placing them in a box. They can only see things through their specific lens and when something differs from what they know, they believe that it is a violation of the ways things should be. They become ignorant of the cultures that they may be right in the middle of by comparing them to the culture that they are familiar with and grading it on a scale. This causes a level of unwillingness to change institutions within a society because they are the standard. This makes it exceedingly difficult to relate to other people and the world as a whole because when someone is always trying to look at something while envisioning it as something else; they will never fully see the beauty of what they are observing. They limit their own experience for the sake of comfort and security, for the safety found within the familiar. Ethnocentrism is the safety blanket for many people yet the enervation that prevents them from fully experiencing the world and all of its different
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
We live in a world society that is changing rapidly. It is causing people of various cultures likely to interact with each other. This interaction can be positive or negative depending on respect people have for other cultural groups and the level of sensitivity. These behaviors are directly related to the two very important concept in sociology, which are known as Ethnocentrism and Culture relativism. Negative attitudes toward other ethnic group or cultures can be result of ethnocentrism. On the other hand, positive attitude can be the result of the culture relativism approach. The purpose of the paper is to show why people need to move from ethnocentrism mindset to culture relativism .As America is becoming more and more diversit,we need
In the era of globalization, it has been more convenient for people to access to foreign culture and develop a better understanding towards its values and attitudes. Yet, being able to put away all preconceived ideas when exploring an unfamiliar culture is extremely critical. In this context, cultural relativism would be a useful anthropological approach to be adopted when one is trying to interpret a foreign culture. It is an aesthetics advocate that all cultures are of equal value that no single culture is uniquely privileged over any others. This essay will argue for cultural relativism because it encourages people to respect and comprehend a culture from a neutral point of view.
Cultural relativism also causes a division amongst the various societies because this would imply that we would not be able to come to an agreement when it came to moral decisions. One of Rachel’s main point addresses the justification of Cultural Relativism is invalid because there is an implication of “rights and wrongs are only matters of opinion.” (Sher, 153) Opinion is not equivalent to truth, therefore there is no truth factor as to what is right or wrong. Rachel’s is not completely opposed to Cultural Relativism but simply differentiates the possibilities of what may occur if we were to take Cultural Relativism too seriously, there is likely to be consequences as he has stated. (Sher,154) It would be a flawed system, in where we would think everything in our society was perfect, hence there would be no room for such
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
First of all, Rachels outlined the argument of the CER theory so that it can be easily to understood and critiqued. The argument for Cultural Ethical Relativism
When one encounters a culture that has little in common with own, one may experience culture shock. This is a sense of confusion, anxiety, stress and loss one may experience. One of the barriers in effective intercultural communication is ethnocentrism. It stems from a conviction that one’s own cultural traditions and assumptions are superior to those of others. It leads to a tendency to look the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. It is one of the fastest ways to create a barrier that inhibits, rather than enhances communication (Jandt, 2012).
Ethnocentrism is when someone judges other peoples cultures, values, or ideas for their own culture. Ethnocentrism is found everywhere, all around us. We are surrounded by people who judge others by their race, religion, and culture which leads to hatred. A negative effect of ethnocentrism is when someone just wants to keep judging others for their beliefs or religion not caring how others might feel about his judging, they are egocentric.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.