Cultural Relativism vs. Ethnocentism

The subjective nature of considering one’s own culture as the universal standard for judging all others is influenced by our immersion in our own culture. This ethnocentrism arises from comparing another culture to our own values that we believe are superior. The parallax phenomenon prevents us from objectively analyzing different cultures due to our inability to escape our biases. In contrast, cultural relativists reject the idea of a moral or cultural high-ground and instead believe that each culture must be understood within its own perspective and context. While some practices may seem strange when viewed across cultures, they appear natural within their own cultural context. However, the relativist approach has limitations defined by cross-cultural universals.

The practices of female genital mutilation and cannibalism are considered abhorrent from a western perspective due to ethnocentrism. However, it is important to have a deeper examination and debate to determine if this abhorrence is solely based on ethnocentrism or if these practices violate cross-cultural universals. To understand the differences in marriage practices across cultures without subjective criticism, a culturally relativist viewpoint is essential. Ethnocentrism relies on the concept of fallibility; there is no infallible moral or cultural superiority that can judge all cultures and their practices. Our moral perceptions are influenced by social conditioning and cultural upbringing (Spiro, 1986, p260), which means that objectivity can only be achieved by distancing ourselves from preconceived notions of what is morally right and acceptable. Relativism plays a crucial role in achieving this distance through extensive knowledge and understanding of our own values as well as the value judgments that may impact sociological research.

The fear of female sexual power and pollution demonstrated by the indigenous people in the Trobriand Islands may seem peculiar to outsiders. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that our own customs may also be viewed as peculiar when observed by individuals from different cultures. These judgments are subjective and influenced by the biases of the observer. It is a superficial evaluation that does not necessitate an understanding of the cultural context of the Trobriand Islands. Conversely, proponents of cultural relativism argue that one must comprehend the cultural background in which this fear exists before passing judgment. The Trobriand society’s history of assaults by cannibalistic Dobu islanders, who were adversaries, prompted them to implement strict political controls for safeguarding their society against external influences.

Cultural relativism enables us to objectively analyze practices that may seem peculiar, such as strict regulations on body hair and gender separation. These practices are rooted in a society’s survival strategies. It is crucial to approach every cultural custom or belief with empathy, despite personal repulsion, in order to make logical deductions free from bias and ethnocentrism. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that relativistic thinking does not condone or endorse acts like female genital mutilation.

While cross-cultural universal values set boundaries, they do not hinder an observer from questioning the practice of female genital mutilation within a cultural group. This practice is deemed morally abhorrent. Both Egyptian and Tanzanian studies have attempted to comprehend the cultural justifications behind this tradition from a relativistic standpoint while upholding objectivity in their condemnation. The condemnation of this practice is not subjective; it is grounded in global support for specific human rights rather than the observer’s ethnocentric prejudices. The notion of marriage varies significantly across cultures, posing a challenge even for the most open-minded individuals in Western society to grasp the marital customs of other cultures. Monogamy is deeply ingrained in Western society to such an extent that legislation exists to prohibit any alternative form of marriage.

The ethnocentric viewpoint of marriage fails to recognize the diverse cultural contexts and needs of individuals in a given marriage arrangement. Understanding Sinhalese culture in Sri Lanka from a relativistic and objective standpoint reveals economic reasons for why a second husband might join an existing monogamous marriage, rather than ethnocentrically rejecting such practices as superficially repulsive. An objective perspective on controversial topics can only arise from a relativistic interpretation of cultural backgrounds. The pursuit of objectivity is fundamentally philosophical and a primary goal in anthropological studies. Subjectivity in cross-cultural observations arises from our culturally influenced assumptions about what is socially acceptable. These ethnocentric perceptions of other cultures tend to lead to shallow judgements against any beliefs or practices that differ from our own. Only through a relativistic approach can one objectively observe and understand the customs of a foreign culture within its proper context.

REFERENCES

1. Boyle, E.H. and others. International Discourse and Local Politics: Anti-Female-Genital-Cutting Laws in Egypt, Tanzania, and the United States’, Social Problems, Vol. 48, No. 4, Special Issue on Globalization and Social Problems. November, 2001, pp. 524-544.
2. Glass, P. Trobriand Symbolic Geography’, Man, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 1. March, 1988, pp. 56-76. Available from:Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496%28198803%292%3A23%3A1%3C56%3ATSG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X >Jureidini, R. & Poole, M. Sociology: Australian Connections, Third Edition, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2003.
3. Leach, E.R. Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage’, Man, Vol. 55. December, 1955, pp. 182-186. Available from:Stable URL: ; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496%28195512%291%3A55%3C182%3A1PIATD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 ;Renteln, A.D. Relativism and the Search for Human Rights’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 90, No. 1. March, 1988, pp. 56-72. Available from:Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28198803%292%3A90%3A1%3C56%3ARATSFH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 >Schultz, E.A. & Lavenda, R.H. Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.
4. Spiro, M.E. Cultural Relativism and the Future of Anthropology’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 3. August, 1986, pp. 259-286. Available from:Stable URL: ; http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0886-7356%28198608%291%3A3%3C259%3ACRATFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2- ;