Grimer wrote:
>That definition of cultural relativity is completely wrong, misleading and
>childish.
Etc.
The real problem seems to be in the meaning of the
word relativism as opposed to relativity. For example,
It means the same thing. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
This is a pretty good article, by the way.
Cultural relativity is the founding principle of anthropology. It is to
anthropology as evolution is to biology, or Einstein's special relativity
is to modern physics.
Benedict XVI, however, has been critical of
progressive Catholicism. In a homily delivered
at a Mass before the cardinals began the conclave
Monday, he warned against "relativism, which is
letting oneself be 'swept along by every wind of
teaching.' [It] looks like the only attitude
[acceptable] to today's standards. We are moving
toward a dictatorship of relativism, which does
not recognize anything as for certain and which
has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's
own desires."
The Pope -- any Pope -- is not an anthropologist, to say the least.
Expecting him to evaluate this concept is like expecting an atheist to
judge a religious dispute. In any case, what the Pope and Malloy are
attacking is called "moral relativism," not cultural relativism. The
Wikipedia article has an excellent quote from one of Boas' students,
Kluckholn, regarding this distinction:
"The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused
and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity
will weaken morality. 'If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all
relative anyway.' But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean.
The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members
of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact
gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural
relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive
or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits
with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among
herders, not among hunters. . . ."
However. I think you need to get inside the minds of
people like Malloy and the Pope (and me for that matter)
and recognise that we understand the word "relativism"
in a different way than you might. 8-)
You understand it wrong. You are members of my culture, so there are no
problem with cultural relativity here. You are simply misusing, or
misappropriating, a technical term. You resemble a perpetual motion machine
inventor who throws around terms such as "cold fusion" or ZPE to represent
whatever hazy idea pops into his head. If you think that "cultural
relativism" would make WWII era U.S. anthropologists into apologists for
Japanese militarism -- or if you think any anthropologist is likely to
sympathize with or excuse any such criminal behavior -- you have no clue
what the term means.
I will grant that in the mind of an anthropologist, cultural relativism
does tend to divorce a great deal of behavior from the rubric of morality.
The Pope (along with many right wing people in the U.S.) would probably be
upset by polygamy, and they would consider it immoral, whereas Kluckholn
and I consider it entirely a matter of culture, what works, and how people
are used to living. It is neither moral nor immoral; that would depend on
the economic circumstances, and the attitudes and expectations of the men
and women engaged in it. For example, in a traditional polygamous African
society, most of the pressure to take a second wife comes from the first
wife, who wants to lord over the second wife and make her do the housework.
That is not how Americans envision polygamy, and it is certainly not how a
typical American wife would act.
As for the Pope, I doubt he has progressed beyond Pious IX, who in 1896
pontificated (literally) as follows: "[L]et him be anathema . . . [w]ho
shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of
freedom as one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions, even when
opposed to revealed doctrine." Oh my, how wonderfully clear the battle
lines were back then! Of course the anti-science brigades in the Congress,
in the churches, and elsewhere still think that way, and they still act on
those beliefs, but they do not admit it so blatantly because they realize
that such views make them look stupid in the eyes of the public.
- Jed
