Culture Quote of the Day - the limits of cultural relativism

"Anthropologists continue to express strong support for cultural relativism. One of the most contentious issues arises from the fundamental question: What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity... [But] the cultural relativists' argument is often used by repressive governments to deflect international criticism of their abuse of their citizens.... I believe that we should not let the concept of relativism stop us from using national and international forums to examine ways to protect the lives and dignity of people in every culture.... When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, anthropologists should choose to protect and promote human rights. We cannot just be bystanders."

Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, quoted in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

"If you believe human rights are a reality, then it makes much more sense that God exists than that he does not. If you insist on a secular view of the world and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world your intellect has devised and the real world (and God) that your heart knows exists. This leads us to a crucial question. If a premise ('There is no God') leads to a conclusion you know isn't true ('Napalming babies is culturally relative') then why not change the premise?"

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

The challenge of the interface between the "relative" and the "absolute." It is heartening to see an Anthropologist wrestle with this issue.

On the one hand, there is the issue of ethnocentrism, seeing things (only) from our point of view, not realizing that there may in fact be different visions of good and right, at work in different cultural contexts. The role of women in society, for example, is a challenging one. What one group considers "repressive," another group finds rooted in their understanding of God and His ways for them. And I'm not talking (only) about Muslims, from a Western perspective. Even in the West, Christian groups differ on issues about the role of women (e.g., whether women should be allowed to be in positives of church leadership or not), not to mention the difference in perspective between Christians and secularists. We can argue over whose perspective, whose interpretation, is "right," but the problem is, we can't agree...

This relates, too, to the area of law, because ultimately, laws are passed based on an idea of what people should not be allowed to do (e.g., rape women, murder people, steal others' belongings, produce child pornography, go nude in public, etc.). There is no society without a code of ethics and morality, without law. But societies do differ in what is prohibited (and prescribed). Western societies prohibit a man from having more than one wife; Islam allows up to four. Many societies ban homosexual marriage; some societies it. There is no end of the examples we can come up with, where what is morally wrong for one group or society, is considered fine by another.

The question arises, when societies differ, what do you do about it? Does one nation or group have a "right" to intervene and enforce their moral code or view of law or right? Who decides? Where is the "line"? (And note that this may look different if you are on the "giving" or the "receiving" end - no group or society likes another group or society stepping in and enforcing their morality.)

And then another dimension of the issue raised in the above quotes: in the U.S., law used to be based on the Bible, which gave it an "absolute" foundation (allowing for the differences in interpretation and application of the Bible). A change eventually took place, and law was "cut loose" from its biblical foundations, and now rests on what the society (majority, or Supreme Court) determines to be the guidelines. Keller points out that in a secular worldview, with no absolute (God, or the Bible), there is really no firm basis for believing in rights. And Fluehr-Lobban's quote shows that even Anthropologists (I'm not sure if she's "secular" or not) struggle with understanding what is "true" or "right." 

I wouldn't say that people who believe in God or in Scripture have the right to impose their understanding on others (add in the question of whose God or vision of God, and whose Scripture); God himself does not impose His will on people, but gives us choice (for which he will one day hold us accountable). But the question of who does have the right to intervene, in what circumstances, by what guiding principles, is a critical one.

Should we seek to prevent child pornography, sexual slavery and other forms of abuse of women and children (and others), ethnic cleansing, etc.? Absolutely. But when we move away from the extremes (which most people will probably agree upon), it becomes harder to navigate the boundary between what is culturally relative and what is not. As a person of faith, I need to admit that the cultural dimension needs to be taken into consideration; and Anthropologists need to admit (as Fluehr-Lobban does) that it's not so simple as to say that everything is culturally relative - it's fairly easy to show that everyone has a core of what they believe to be "true" or "right," and a sense that some of those values at least have reality outside of (across) cultural boundaries.

Are science and medicine culturally relative?

I would like to consider two non-religious examples, medicine and science, to see whether it is possible to be ethnorelative (Bennett's term) but believe that something is true.

In Tunisia, there was what they called "Arab medicine," which is how they referred to traditional Tunisian medical concepts, meds, etc., and what they called "French medicine," by which they meant Western or modern medicine.

To be ethnocentric toward Tunisian "Arab medicine" might be to discount it (as stupid, false, irrelevant, superstitious, backward, etc.) without understanding it, not to see it in its broader cultural context, etc. - i.e., to judge it from an outside frame of reference (that which I as an American know to be "true" in regard to medicine).

To be ethnorelative would involve understanding Tunisian "Arab medicine" within its cultural context, which could include understanding something of the history (how and why certain concepts or practices arose), cultural connections (including religious and other belief systems), contexts in which someone would use "Arab medicine," and how they would use it, etc.

"French medicine" came into Tunisia from outside (as has been common with the spread of modern technology, scientific and medical knowledge, etc., in modern times - don't forget, though, that at one point the Muslim world represented the high point of medical, scientific and other knowledge in the world). It has fit in, and functions within the system, alongside the traditional "Arab medicine" (within the society, the culture).

You can "prove" the "truth" of much of modern medicine, e.g., that bacteria and viruses exists, the effects of antibiotics (or the lack of using them) and other meds on various conditions, etc. (note, however, that modern doctors don't know everything, can't always figure out either what is wrong or what to do about it, and meds don't always "work" - there's an awful lot of guesswork and experimenting to see what effect a certain treatment has).

Is it ethnocentric for someone who is non-Tunisian to believe in the truth of modern medicine, and to bring it into Tunisia ("we bring you true medical knowledge and medicine")? I would have to say, that depends on the person's attitude and their interaction with Tunisian society and culture. It would certainly be possible to enter Tunisia as an outsider, with your modern medical knowledge and meds, in a way that trampled on the local people, treated them as ignorant, ignored their culture, etc., and acting as if everything modern or western was superior, etc. (I have heard Tunisians complain of the way certain Westerners have lived in Tunisia, in how they viewed and treated Tunisian culture). If your goal was to have a positive impact on Tunisia, through bringing modern medicine, you might well fail, if you came in an ethnocentric way.

On the other hand, it would be possible, I would think, to believe in the "truth" of modern medicine, and to introduce it to Tunisia in a non-ethnocentric way - if you cared about the local culture (and sociocultural context), sought to understand local medical beliefs and practices (as well as the broader culture), learned to adapt to the culture and relate well to the people (to see the world from their perspective), etc. You might offer modern medicine not in a "we are the civilized people and you are the ignorant barbarians" way, but in a "we have something that we have discovered, that might be of use to you, and we'd be glad to share it with you if you're interested" way, and (as mentioned) with an understanding of how things actually work culturally in Tunisia. (Note that the history of aid and development is littered with projects which failed because of lack of cultural understanding.)

Being ethnorelative rather than ethnocentric in introducing something like medical practices that you believe to be true, to another culture, means seeking to share the knowledge, practices, etc., without your own cultural "baggage," allowing those you give the info and practices to, to adapt them to their own cultural context in their own way.

I think the same would apply with scientific knowledge or truth, in various areas of science.

The other thing I'll say, at this point, is that in medicine and science, as in the "softer" areas of life, human beings "see through a glass darkly" - e.g., throughout history we have been certain of scientific and medical "truth," only to have our knowledge challenged, undermined, and changed at a later point in history. This has been true in all areas of knowledge, all areas of "truth." And this is one of the reasons that when it comes to relating to people who have other knowledge and experience, we should not be too quick to judge either the inferiority of their "truth" or the superiority of ours (or who are the "civilized" and who are the "barbarians").