No abstract

No abstract

The theory of ethical relativism has been the subject of much misunderstanding. It is argued that the central insight of relativism is enculturation and not tolerance. Relativism is characterized as a metaethical theory about the nature of moral perceptions. As such it is logical& consistent, permits moral criticism, and is compatible with cross-cultural universals. The existence of universals may indicate global support for particular human rights.Spix and Martius asked a chiefof the Miranhas why his people practiced cannibalism. The chief showed that it was entirely a new fact to him that some people thought it an abominable custom."You whites," said he, "will not eat crocodiles or apes, although they taste well. If you did not have so many pigs and crabs you would eat crocodiles and apes, for hunger hurts. It is all a matter of habit. When I have killed an enemy, it is better to eat him than to let him go to waste.Big game is rare because it does not lay eggs like turtles. The bad thing is not being eaten, but death, if I am slain, whether our tribal enemy rats me or not. I know of no game which tastes better than men. You whites are really too dainty." [Sumner 191 1:331] HE THEORY OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM HAS BEEN GREATLY MISUNDERSTOOD and T unfairly dismissed not only by its critics but also by its proponents. This article attempts to clarify the issues central to the debate and thereby correct the caricatured picture of relativism. Although the most controversial aspect of relativism tends to be the question of the extent to which relativists must tolerate intolerance, the crux of the argument, I maintain, should be whether or not it is possible to establish cross-cultural universals. I begin by presenting a brief description of the historical circumstances that gave rise to the theory of cultural relativism. I t was in the early stages of the formulation of the theory that the groundwork was laid for future misunderstandings. Next follows a conceptual analysis of the theory paying close attention to rendering the theory coherent by avoiding self-referential paradoxes. Related to this issue is the question of whether tolerance is a necessary concomitant of the theory of cultural relativism. I then discuss the importance of enculturation to the theory and its consequence, namely, ethnocentrism or a lack of tolerance. Since tolerance is an American ideal, American anthropologists have been uneasy about the implications of embracing relativism completely. This misunderstanding of the theory as wrongly connected with tolerance is reflected in the debate surrounding the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in the 1940s. Finally, I conclude that relativism in no way precludes the possibility of cross-cultural universals discovered through empirical research. T h e existence of such universals might very well indicate worldwide support for particular human rights. Historical OverviewT h e doctrine of relativism is not a modern development. The Greeks wrote about its implications, and Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) cap...

Religious symbols evoke strong emotional responses, particularly those that are visual. This article considers a set of cases in which members of ethnic minority groups challenge policies denying them the right to wear symbols important for the maintenance of their social identities. Among the controversies considered are those concerning religious headgear and hair as well as the kirpan, the Sikh ceremonial dagger. The number of disputes involving religious garb and hairstyles demonstrates how visual religious symbols are often perceived as threatening. By analyzing selected cases in which religious minorities experience discrimination, this study reveals the precarious nature of religious liberty in democratic systems. Careful consideration of the religious symbols of minority groups may help avoid ethnocentric assessments and cross-cultural misunderstandings.