Relativism and the Search for Human Rights

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...

Historic perspectives from anthropology. Reflections proposed to Transcultural Nursing

“…Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. 5 However, an ethical stance arises if an anthropologist comes across studies describing cultural practices opposed to her/his own values, one example is "sexual mutilations", as observed in some African villages. The description of these practices 6 becomes conflicting when confronting the theoretic premise of relativism previously cited.…”

Design for a common world: On ethical agency and cognitive justice

“…Nanda is determined, however, to understand the pluralists' willingness to take stock of the different ways of knowing, the 'is', as an ethical norm of uncritical tolerance to these different ways of knowing, the 'ought'. But such tolerance, is not a logical consequence of the fact that there are diverse ways of knowing (Renteln 1988). In fact, Visvanathan does not claim that because there 'are' different ways of knowing, we 'ought' to be uncritically tolerant to these different ways of knowing.…”

Toward a Critical Anthropology of Human Rights

“…She does 6. And it was a political scientist, Alison Dundes Renteln, who published the first article in the American Anthropologist after the 1940s to engage directly with human rights, although in this case only in order to explore the meanings of cultural relativism (Renteln 1988). not reinforce this claim with any citations that reflect this "continual reference," even if this way of describing the 1947 statement would become commonplace during the 1990s. In a sense, Engle commits a logical fallacy-post hoc, ergo propter hoc-in making this argument: that the sea change during the 1990s among some anthropologists was caused by a buildup of simmering "embarrassment" during the preceding 40 years.…”