Abstract
Cultural relativism, a foundational concept in anthropology and sociology, emphasises the importance of understanding cultural practices and beliefs within their specific socio-historical contexts rather than through external standards. This principle challenges ethnocentrism by promoting the view that no culture is inherently superior to another, fostering tolerance and deeper cross-cultural understanding. This paper explores the theoretical underpinnings of cultural relativism, tracing its evolution from Franz Boas’s early anthropological work to contemporary applications in international relations, gender studies, and human rights debates. Using case studies such as foot binding in China, female genital cutting in Africa, and the Mursi lip plates of Ethiopia, it demonstrates how cultural relativism facilitates nuanced interpretations of diverse practices. Furthermore, the paper critically examines the tensions between cultural relativism and universal human rights frameworks, highlighting ethical dilemmas and methodological challenges. By integrating perspectives from critical cultural relativism and rooted universalism, the research underscores the necessity of balancing cultural empathy with ethical accountability in an increasingly interconnected world. Ultimately, this study affirms that cultural relativism is indispensable for fostering intercultural dialogue while advocating for adaptive frameworks that reconcile respect for cultural diversity with global ethical standards.
Get access to academic research project materials for final-year students in your department here.
Introduction
Cultural relativism, a cornerstone of anthropological inquiry, posits that cultural practices and beliefs must be interpreted within their specific socio-historical contexts rather than external ethical frameworks. This principle challenges ethnocentric biases and fosters cross-cultural understanding by emphasising the inherent validity of diverse value systems (Geertz, 1973; Kanarek, 2013). This chapter examines the theoretical foundations, practical applications, and critical debates surrounding cultural relativism, drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship to analyse its role in interpreting cultural diversity. Through case studies and contemporary critiques, the analysis underscores both the utility and limitations of relativistic approaches in globalised societies.
Theoretical Foundations
Origins and Evolution
Cultural relativism emerged from early 20th-century anthropology, notably through Franz Boas’s rejection of ethnocentric evolutionism. Boas argued that cultures should be studied holistically, free from hierarchical comparisons, to uncover their unique logics (Geertz, 1973; Kanarek, 2013). His student, Melville Herskovits, later formalised the concept, asserting that “judgments are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of their own enculturation” (Miller, 2007, p. 45). Clifford Geertz’s thick description further refined this by advocating for deep contextual analysis of symbols and practices, such as interpreting Balinese cockfights as reflections of social stratification rather than mere brutality (Geertz, 1973).
Key Principles
1. Suspension of Judgment: Practices are evaluated based on their cultural significance, not external norms. For instance, ritualistic El Colacho (baby-jumping) in Spain, criticised for child endangerment, is defended locally as a centuries-old tradition to ward off evil spirits (Gairdner, 2008).
2. Cultural Plurality: No single culture holds moral or epistemic superiority. The Mursi people of Ethiopia, for example, view lip plates as symbols of beauty and identity, a practice inconceivable in cultures prioritising facial symmetry (Gairdner, 2008).
3. Contextual Morality: Ethical standards are culturally constructed. While absolute relativists accept practices like female genital cutting (FGC) as culturally valid (Boas, 1887), critical relativists question their human rights implications (Miller, 2007).
Applications in Cross-Cultural Analysis
Case Study 1: Gender and Aesthetic Norms
– Foot Binding in China: Between the 10th and 20th centuries, foot binding symbolised feminine virtue and class status. Despite its physical toll, it persisted due to its entanglement with marriageability and Confucian ideals of discipline (Boas, 1887; Gairdner, 2008). Western colonial critiques often overlooked its socio-cultural embeddedness, exemplifying ethnocentrism.
– Mursi Lip Plates: Among Ethiopia’s Mursi, lip plates signify adulthood and social cohesion. Anthropological analyses reveal their role in rites of passage, challenging Eurocentric views of body modification as mere “mutilation” (Gairdner, 2008).
Case Study 2: Ritual Practices and Human Rights
– El Colacho: This Spanish tradition highlights tensions between cultural preservation and child safety. Critical relativists advocate dialogue to reconcile respect for heritage with universal child welfare standards (Gairdner, 2008; Miller, 2007).
– FGC in Africa: Defenders frame FGC as a rite of passage ensuring social integration, whereas global health campaigns condemn it as gender-based violence. This dichotomy underscores the interplay between cultural autonomy and transnational human rights discourse (Boas, 1887; Miller, 2007).
Business and Diplomacy
Cultural relativism informs international relations, such as Western corporations operating in hierarchical societies. For instance, deference to authority in East Asian business cultures often conflicts with egalitarian Western management styles (Kanarek, 2013). Relativistic approaches advocate adaptive strategies rather than unilateral ethical impositions.
Methodological Considerations
Ethnographic Rigor
Boasian ethnography remains pivotal, requiring immersive engagement to avoid etic (outsider) biases. For example, Marvin Harris’s cultural materialism links the Hindu veneration of cows to their ecological and economic utility in agrarian India, countering superficial judgments of “irrationality” (Geertz, 1973).
Quantitative Cross-Cultural Studies
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) provide frameworks for comparing risk tolerance or leadership styles. However, critics argue such metrics oversimplify intra-cultural diversity, as seen in generational shifts towards individualism in traditionally collectivist Japan (Geertz, 1973).
Critical Perspectives and Ethical Dilemmas
1. Universalism vs. Relativism: Kanarek (2013) critiques relativism for undermining universal human rights, citing its inability to condemn practices like honour killings. Conversely, Zechenter (1997) warns that universalism risks cultural imperialism, advocating instead for “rooted universalism” that integrates local contexts.
2. The Paradox of Tolerance: Absolute relativism’s acceptance of oppressive practices creates ethical paradoxes. For example, should democracies tolerate authoritarian regimes’ suppression of free speech under relativistic premises? (Kanarek, 2013).
3. Epistemic Challenges: Relativism’s rejection of objective truth complicates cross-cultural research. If all knowledge is culture-bound, how can anthropologists validate findings across societies? (Miller, 2007).
Get access to academic research project materials for final-year students in your department here.
Conclusion
Cultural relativism remains indispensable for fostering intercultural dialogue yet contentious in its practical application. While it counters ethnocentrism and enriches ethnographic understanding, its theoretical limits—particularly regarding human rights—demand nuanced frameworks that balance cultural empathy with ethical accountability. Future research should explore hybrid models, such as critical relativism, to address these tensions in an increasingly interconnected world.
References
Boas, F. (1887). Museums of ethnology and their classification. Science, 9(228), 587–589.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Gairdner, W. D. (2008). The book of absolutes: A critique of relativism and a defence of universals. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Kanarek, J. (2013). Critiquing cultural relativism. The Intellectual Standard, 2(2), 1–10. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/tis/vol2/iss2/1
Miller, B. (2007). Cultural anthropology (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Zechenter, E. M. (1997). In the name of culture: Cultural relativism and the abuse of the individual. Journal of Anthropological Research, 53(3), 319–347.